NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

I agree relegion is just used as an excuse. That doesnt mean that a certain relegion is bad. Like some terroists use Islam as there excuse just like how christians used christianity to start the crusades. It doesnt mean the relegion is bad just a select few who have the worlds attention set a bad example.

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.

My religion taught me compassion, respect for life, tolerance, understanding, to look for the facts, to direct anger to the deed not the doer, etc., etc. No religion teaches destruction, greed, hate, and death.

But what questions do you ask? How do you decide?

That would depend on the specific situation. If I'm stopping some people from getting into a fight, I'll be asking myself different questions than when I'm deciding how honest to be with someone about a self-image issue. If you want to provide an example of a specific situation, I could tell you what sort of questions I would ask myself in that context, if you want.

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.

There is no reason to assume that the other person wants what I want, which is why I don't believe in the Golden Rule. In fact, the two questions of mine that you quoted indicate quite clearly that I do not assume that the other person wants the same as me.

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

Are you asking me why I care about the other person (or people) enough to morally involve myself?

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

Don't forget to do it in mirror writing.

That only works if I assume I'm relevantly similar to other people, a baseless position.

To be honest, I think Murayvets did not get my position exactly correct. Just to be perfectly clear: the questions I ask do not assume that the other(s) involved are even remotely like me.

Empathy, compassion, and imagination are not a complete answer. Why those? How are they applied? Why are they applied in that way?

I use those things (empathy, compassion, and imagination) because they are the tools that seem to work best, according to my observations. They are applied differently according to each situation. The reason I apply them differently for each situation is because each situation is different, and each individual is different.

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.

Here I am. Investigate away.

There is no reason to assume that the other person wants what I want, which is why I don't believe in the Golden Rule.

Do you belive in the Tarnished Silver Rule? You know- Do unto others before they do unto you? J/K:p

My religion taught me compassion, respect for life, tolerance, understanding, to look for the facts, to direct anger to the deed not the doer, etc., etc. No religion teaches destruction, greed, hate, and death.

Well, Levayen Satanisim is pretty big on greed IIRC.

My religion taught me compassion, respect for life, tolerance, understanding, to look for the facts, to direct anger to the deed not the doer, etc., etc. No religion teaches destruction, greed, hate, and death.

Um, well...

Except there's no starting point for an empirical investigation, so the means I would use in other areas doesn't work.

It seems like you just object to the application of human reason in general, then.

If you're okay with having a system of morality that you admit is totally not based on human reason in any way, but rather was chosen because it is what felt good to you, go right ahead. If not, accept that your reason is limited--like everything else about you--and get over it.

You will never, ever know if you picked the "right" morality, because there's no objective standard to judge morality by. You will never know if you're objectively a "good" person, because there's no objective standard. I know that uncertainty hurts some people's feelings, but that doesn't change reality.

You will have to do the best you can with the limited information and abilities we humans possess. God-based morality will not change this. You will simply be choosing not to think too hard on the subject and instead let somebody else tell you the answers they came up with. That's your choice, and it's every bit as subjective and limited as any other moral choice you could make. Putting a God-image in the mix doesn't change that. It doesn't magically make your morality based on anything objective. You've just elected a subjective figurehead to stand for your subjective morality.


But what if the list of exceptions was quite long? The majority, even? Alternately, how do you identify exceptions?
You think.

Seriously, it's just that simple. Use your brain to evaluate, the same way you do with everything else. Moral judgment is not different from any other kind of judgment, in terms of the mechanics behind it, and it's all 100% totally and completely subjective. There is absolutely positively no objective source for morality at all. You WILL be making subjective moral choices. Period. No way to escape it. You can choose, subjectively, to use a subjective God-image as your fixation point, but don't kid yourself and pretend that you're somehow doing anything different from anybody else who subjectively decides how to define morality.

No religion teaches destruction, greed, hate, and death.
Um, bullshit?

Plenty of religions teach any or all of those. Religion doesn't HAVE to teach them, and a great many don't, but that doesn't mean none do.

Is it just me, or are many of the topics on forum here against conservitive Christians, such as myself?
Wait a bit -- soon there will be a flush of threads started by conservative Christians, and you will see the "anti" slant swing the other way, like a pendulum.

However, in general, this is not a conservative Christian dominated forum, so you may see more criticism of conservative Christian political/social policies than you might be used to, if you are more familiar with religion-oriented forums. Plus, there are belligerent trolls on both sides. I suggest you try to ignore the trolls.

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.
And now for some criticism :D:

I see, so it's not enough for people to be moral, they have to have the right kind of morals, which you get to define, and which can come only from a source you approve of?

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.
Hehehe, adorable the way you went off topic like that to inject one of your own little pet issues that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. I could dissect these remarks at length, but they are off topic and so I think we should just save them for another thread, don't you?

That only works if I assume I'm relevantly similar to other people, a baseless position.

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.
The bolded sentence is pretty much a classic indicator of sociopathy and/or psychopathy.

One of the hallmarks of sociopaths is that they are so overwhelmingly self-centered that they feel absolutely zero connection to or concern with any other being in the world. They relate to others only to the extent that others can fulfill their needs, which fulfillment they will get by any means, no matter what the cost to others, just as long as there is little to no cost to themselves. The only time they may pay attention to the effect they are having on others, is if they are having fun jerking someone else around or playing with their emotions, thoughts or lives, but as soon as the game becomes boring, they will drop it. I have heard experts in criminal behavior say that sociopaths are the most dangerous human personality type in the world. By "dangerous" I mean that they pose a threat to the people or society around them.

Psychopaths are subtly different. Apparently, psychopaths do not always have the self-centeredness and egotism of sociopaths, but they do distinctly lack a sense of recognizing others as similar to themselves. They simply cannot imagine the pain or suffering or joys of other people, and cannot imagine that their own feelings may be similar to the feelings of others. Psychopathy also includes other mental quirks as well, and when psychopaths are exposed to the kinds of early-life traumas and abuses that tend to lead to criminal behavior, they do make the most spectacular kinds of criminals.

However, apparently, relatively few psychopaths become criminals, whereas sociopaths very often do, which is striking considering that most modern neurology and psychology experts believe that true sociopathy is relatively rare, whereas true psychopathy is somewhat more common in the general human population.

The thing you must remember is that sociopathy and psychopathy are NOT philosophies, or ways of thinking, or mindsets. Also they are NOT created by social conditioning. How they get expressed in the person's life is determined by life experience and social conditioning, but the states of sociopathy and psychopathy are thought, by modern science, to be hardwired into the brain from birth. In other words, a person either has fellow feeling with others, or he doesn't.

Now considering your arguments, I am not sure if you are expressing your own real feelings/experiences or if you are exploring an abstract concept as an intellectual exercise. Whichever, you should be aware that what you are talking about -- a total lack of any kind of empathy between human beings that, in and of itself, serves as the foundational standard for controlling interpersonal behavior -- is a hallmark of sociopathy and psychopathy. In other words, that lack does exist, but it is not the norm of human beings. It is an abnormality.

The vast majority of human beings DO have the feeliings you say do not exist. They may follow those feelings or go against those feelings, but they do have them.

And no, those feelings do not have any source outside the individual human's brain. The source of those feelings is biological. It is really not different from the fellow feeling that other kinds of animals display as well. We can argue forever about whether humans can have any rational justification for empathy or altruism or cooperation, but there can be no suggestion that birds or wolves or gorillas, etc, can have a rational justification for such things, yet they display precisely the same kind of behaviors amongst themselves every day. Now some people argue that behavior in animals that appears "moral" is somehow completely different from the same behavior that appears "moral" when done by humans, but I personally don't buy those arguments. I think it is far more likely that if both humans and non-humans engage in the same kind of behaviors, the reason for it is probably also the same as well.

So since empathy is biologically determined, my statement stands -- the "starting point," as you put it, is you. The self. Each of us begins from the same starting point -- our own brains, and our own sense of ourselves as beings, and all awareness of the world spins out from there. The ability to recognize others as similar to ourselves is the core of empathy. If a person does not feel that recognition, then they will not feel empathy, and there is not a thing that society can do about that, EXCEPT impose rules for that person to follow so that they can live with the rest of us with minimal conflict.

But just because some people are not able to feel empathy, it does not follow that empathy does not exist. Just because some people are not able to formulate a moral framework of their own, it does not follow that morals must be imposed from without. Just because some people cannot judge right from wrong on their own, it does not follow that there is no way to tell right from wrong on one's own.

You have a fact before you that does not jibe with the worldview expressed in your argument: You have the testimony of many, many people stating that they do feel empathy and that empathy is the foundation of their morality.

This directly contradicts your assertion that empathy does not exist and that morality cannot be based on it. (Because obviously, if someone does something, then that thing can be done, and if people do base their morality on empathy, then it is possible for morality to be based on empathy.)

You will not make progress in your argument unless you can reconcile that contradiction. You say there is no feeling called empathy. People stand before you here, declaring that they do in fact feel empathy. Are you going to call us all deluded or dishonest and insist that you and you alone are right? Or are you going to consider the possibility that your concept does not match reality, and give it some more thought?

Um, bullshit?

Plenty of religions teach any or all of those. Religion doesn't HAVE to teach them, and a great many don't, but that doesn't mean none do.

In their respective scriptures, most religions don't teach those things. The fact that humans are fundamentally incapable of following those simple tenets and devolving into using religion for hatred and greed and whatnot is more a statement against humanity than against religion.

To be honest, I think Murayvets did not get my position exactly correct. Just to be perfectly clear: the questions I ask do not assume that the other(s) involved are even remotely like me.

<snip>

To be honest, I was not referring to your position at all, but stating an argument of my own in response to Llewdor's remarks/questions. My comments should be read as entirely independent of yours.

I did not try to comment on your position because I have no serious differences or issues with it. I could quibble over the self/other/difference/Golden Rule thing, but my quibbles would be so minor -- and probably semantical -- that they are nowhere near worth bothering with. In general, I consider your view to be just as valid as mine.

EDIT: Actually, I think I may as well explain myself after all. :)

When I say that we start by seeing others as similar to ourselves, I do not mean to say that it is right to just assume that everybody is like us and likes/needs what we like/need. I mean that the first measure we have for human behavior/needs/feelings/etc is ourselves, so in order to try to understand others, we start by comparing them to ourselves in order to find the points of similarity and the points of difference.

But my statements should still be read independent of yours because I am not referring to your statements in mine.

You have to be moral to be moral.

You have to be moral to be moral.

Can you give us more of a clue as to what you mean?
Moral=Moral true and?

Can you give us more of a clue as to what you mean?
Moral=Moral true and?

Being religious doesn't have anything to do with being moral. Sure religion also teaches us on how to behave on the horizontal inter-mortal relations (... okay that last part is something I made up), then again, does that stop anyone who isn't religious from being moral? Or vice a versa, a religious person from being totally amoral?

So, in closing, I state, you have to be moral to be moral. Religion, culture, community, and the other stuff that builds character only serves as way of learning set morality. The decision to use them, however, depends on,... well,... your morality.

There is no morality. There are only explanations why other people are wrong/immoral/twisted and why we are moral l33t and so we have a "right" to "correct" them.

There is no morality. There are only explanations why other people are wrong/immoral/twisted and why we are moral l33t and so we have a "right" to "correct" them.

There's no need to let arrogant assholes define morality.

There's no need to let arrogant assholes define morality.

Threads ARE for expressing of opinions of people, are they not? Was that a logical fallacy there (ad hominem)? And by not believing in morality I am not arrogant, I think. I do not consider another people as unworthy.

Threads ARE for expressing of opinions of people, are they not? Was that a logical fallacy there (ad hominem)? And by not believing in morality I am not arrogant, I think. I do not consider another people as unworthy.

My advice is not to get caught up with the mods, as they have more power than you in the forum, that and they have lots of experience of debating tactics, and they might be a bit rushed with other things to do as they are also human despite the evidence to the contrary.

My advice is not to get caught up with the mods, as they have more power than you in the forum, that and they have lots of experience of debating tactics, and they might be a bit rushed with other things to do as they are also human despite the evidence to the contrary.

Duly noted. However, a personal attack is enough for me to try to counter with nonaggressive reasoning.

My advice is not to get caught up with the mods, as they have more power than you in the forum, that and they have lots of experience of debating tactics, and they might be a bit rushed with other things to do as they are also human despite the evidence to the contrary.
That's no reason not to debate with the mods.

We all have real lives too, and there's no point avoiding debate because the person you are arguing with holds a position of authority; mod, politician or whomever.

Threads ARE for expressing of opinions of people, are they not? Was that a logical fallacy there (ad hominem)? And by not believing in morality I am not arrogant, I think. I do not consider another people as unworthy.

I wasn't suggesting any arrogance on your part. Merely that the kind of people who exhibit the behaviors you were describing as morality are hardly people from whom anyone should get their definition of morality, because they sound like arrogant assholes.

What "it" are you talking about?

Their "beliefs."

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?

I really haven't seen that happen, at least not in America. You will find many atheists in the wealthiest suburbs, the highest academic positions, every job you can think of that's not directly related to religion, and every station of life. And you will find atheists in every club and social organization that is not heavily religious.

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

I have yet to hear an atheist pay lip service to anything, although many Christians who really believe in nothing do.

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!

I have yet to see this "dumb argument" disproven, and if you wish to disprove it, it would serve you far better to give relevant facts on the subject, and some kind of relevant evidence against what I say.

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?

That's different. That's the state threatening an individual for what he is and how he acts, and force them to suppress an easily observed action and live their lives in a certain way. There is no way the government can really do anything to force you to believe in something. It's unenforceable.

Now religious morality may be different, but you don't have to believe in God to believe in that, and if you believe in God you may still not believe in parts of it, as I don't. I for one would never call a gay person a "faggot," and feel that the real problem with gay marriage and really marriage in general is that government is involved in marriage in the first place.

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.

If your arguments spoke for themselves, you wouldn't need the extra paragraph.

That's no reason not to debate with the mods.

We all have real lives too, and there's no point avoiding debate because the person you are arguing with holds a position of authority; mod, politician or whomever.

Very much agreed. Unfortunately, a fair number of people tend to give less of a benefit of the doubt to Mods, and that makes it harder for us to debate.

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

It is illegal to put a penny in your ear.

A penny in the ear? How could anyone claim to be moral and NOT condemn that!?!

I voted of personal experience. I know many athiest and agnostic, and many christians. The christians in my life have genrally had better morals. I also know more un-religous people are pro-life than christians, and abortion is murder.

Very much agreed. Unfortunately, a fair number of people tend to give less of a benefit of the doubt to Mods, and that makes it harder for us to debate.
Well you, Kat and (occasionaly) Melkor Unchained often get stuck in, to good effect.

Personally, an advantage I see in Mods debating on NS:G (apart from the fact that most of you guys have been on here for yonks and are thus a lot less prone to poor debating skills) is that quite a few of you have political positions far away from the average Generalite.

We need some more coherent opposing positions, less NS:G turns into a mire of back-slapping and trolls.

I consider myself pretty moral, and hold no standard religious beliefs.

Really, without a concrete definition of morality, the debate's pointless.
Since comparable atrocities have been committed by almost all denominations (including Atheists) of people, you can't really say that events like the Holocaust or 9/11 are good cases against religion. Same goes for the Crusades, Muslim suicide bombers, etc.
Stalin's attempts to Atheize Russia after seizing power involved slaughtering huge amounts of people, amounts of people that made Hitler look like a junior killer-in-training.
So I think we can generally agree that people, not religion, are the problem.

Well you, Kat and (occasionaly) Melkor Unchained often get stuck in, to good effect.

Personally, an advantage I see in Mods debating on NS:G (apart from the fact that most of you guys have been on here for yonks and are thus a lot less prone to poor debating skills) is that quite a few of you have political positions far away from the average Generalite.

We need some more coherent opposing positions, less NS:G turns into a mire of back-slapping and trolls.

Hehe. Part of the reason I rarely debate anymore is precisely the back-slapping and trolls.

People like you are the reason I still do occasionally read the debates and jump in.

Well, Levayen Satanisim is pretty big on greed IIRC.

I stand corrected.

Um, bullshit?

Plenty of religions teach any or all of those. Religion doesn't HAVE to teach them, and a great many don't, but that doesn't mean none do.

Name one.

My advice is not to get caught up with the mods, as they have more power than you in the forum, that and they have lots of experience of debating tactics, and they might be a bit rushed with other things to do as they are also human despite the evidence to the contrary.


If the best argument they can come up with is abuse of power, then you've won the argument.

It has been shown to do so, actually :

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

I know, I've heard of the Joshua/General Li experiment. I'm just saying not all religious people are evil fire-and-damnation types, there are some who actually practice what JC taught.

Name one.

Well, you apparently stood corrected for all of one post.

Well, you apparently stood corrected for all of one post.
Wow, yeah, that was impressive. Whiplash!

I know, I've heard of the Joshua/General Li experiment. I'm just saying not all religious people are evil fire-and-damnation types, there are some who actually practice what JC taught.

I'm wary of religion. Someone once said that anybody can be good or bad, but for a good person to be doing bad things and think them just, it takes religion.

I'm not saying all religious people are foaming at the mouth maniacs, but I've obeserved that as soon as a certain type of person fiercely believes in something abstract, religion or philosophy makes little difference there, they become quite dangerous.
You could say I don't have so much a problem with religion as more with strong beliefs ;)

I'm wary of religion. Someone once said that anybody can be good or bad, but for a good person to be doing bad things and think them just, it takes religion.

I'm not saying all religious people are foaming at the mouth maniacs, but I've obeserved that as soon as a certain type of person fiercely believes in something abstract, religion or philosophy makes little difference there, they become quite dangerous.
You could say I don't have so much a problem with religion as more with strong beliefs ;)
That's one of the most annoying aspects of religion, to me.

Religion is all about the individual selecting or creating an image of something that they revere or respect or worship. That doesn't have to be a bad thing, because having an ideal that you look up to can be a powerfully good force, but it's waaaaaaaaaaay too easy for it to be a bad thing. It's way too easy for an individual to create an image that supports whatever bullshit the individual already believes in, and then invoke that self-created image as some kind of justification for their own personal bullshit.

I don't trust any person who says they get all their morality or values from one outside source. First of all, your morality is internal. You are making conscious choices using your brain. Own those choices. If you choose to follow a particular God-image, own the fact that YOU choose which God you follow, and therefore God isn't the one choosing your values for you at all.

Second of all, if you're using a single source for something as important as morality, then you're lazy, or stupid, or lying.

That's one of the most annoying aspects of religion, to me.

Religion is all about the individual selecting or creating an image of something that they revere or respect or worship. That doesn't have to be a bad thing, because having an ideal that you look up to can be a powerfully good force, but it's waaaaaaaaaaay too easy for it to be a bad thing. It's way too easy for an individual to create an image that supports whatever bullshit the individual already believes in, and then invoke that self-created image as some kind of justification for their own personal bullshit.

I don't trust any person who says they get all their morality or values from one outside source. First of all, your morality is internal. You are making conscious choices using your brain. Own those choices. If you choose to follow a particular God-image, own the fact that YOU choose which God you follow, and therefore God isn't the one choosing your values for you at all.

Second of all, if you're using a single source for something as important as morality, then you're lazy, or stupid, or lying.

I had a thread on this a loooong time ago. IT had always bugged me how the rabiddly religious on here would quote the bible at anybody asking a question until nobody remembered what the original question had been.
I wondered why they did it, cause I had asked them for their opinion, not for what the bible said. Getting quotes thrown at me just led me to believe that the person asked simply had no own opinion, but rather would hide behind other people's and not take any form of responsibility whatsoever.

I think you put that quite nicely, there. They don't own their choices, they let others choose for them and when questioned, redirect the blame to ancient books...

Well, you apparently stood corrected for all of one post.

I didn't mind being corrected when the correcter had evidence. If Bottle had even just repeated what the previous person had said, I would have accepted Bottle's correction as well. I was being corrected for glowing generalizations; I returned the favor.

I'm wary of religion. Someone once said that anybody can be good or bad, but for a good person to be doing bad things and think them just, it takes religion.

I'm not saying all religious people are foaming at the mouth maniacs, but I've obeserved that as soon as a certain type of person fiercely believes in something abstract, religion or philosophy makes little difference there, they become quite dangerous.
You could say I don't have so much a problem with religion as more with strong beliefs ;)

And yet so many people think that someone who doesn't have strong opinions is a wishy-washy, untrustworthy coward. It's nice to hear someone defending skeptics and cynics for a change.

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.



So let me get this straight...


Not only am I deeply in pain and angry at God because Im an athiest, but proof of my eternal pain is because I get irritated when religious bullshit is shoved down my throat?

Oh....my soul hurts....it hurts so much...maybe...maybe I do need God.:rolleyes:


:sniper:


The reason athiests care about seeing religion everywhere we fucking go is because it shows a complete lack of respect for our belief that God is a load of bullshit and the equivalent to believing in Santa Claus. I garunfuckingtee you that if Islam was the dominante American religion, and if the messege "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet" was written everywhere you went, that Christians would be infuriated.


Its so easy for the majority to tell the minority to just get over it.:headbang:

Are you asking me why I care about the other person (or people) enough to morally involve myself?
Yes.

I use those things (empathy, compassion, and imagination) because they are the tools that seem to work best, according to my observations. They are applied differently according to each situation. The reason I apply them differently for each situation is because each situation is different, and each individual is different.
When you say they work best, how are you determining best? By what standard are you measuring the tools?

The bolded sentence is pretty much a classic indicator of sociopathy and/or psychopathy.
And, as it happens, you're wrong.

That would only be true if one held that others were not relevantly similar. But that's not the only other option; you appear to have assumed an excluded middle. I'll explain further down.
One of the hallmarks of sociopaths is that they are so overwhelmingly self-centered that they feel absolutely zero connection to or concern with any other being in the world. They relate to others only to the extent that others can fulfill their needs, which fulfillment they will get by any means, no matter what the cost to others, just as long as there is little to no cost to themselves. The only time they may pay attention to the effect they are having on others, is if they are having fun jerking someone else around or playing with their emotions, thoughts or lives, but as soon as the game becomes boring, they will drop it. I have heard experts in criminal behavior say that sociopaths are the most dangerous human personality type in the world. By "dangerous" I mean that they pose a threat to the people or society around them.

Psychopaths are subtly different. Apparently, psychopaths do not always have the self-centeredness and egotism of sociopaths, but they do distinctly lack a sense of recognizing others as similar to themselves. They simply cannot imagine the pain or suffering or joys of other people, and cannot imagine that their own feelings may be similar to the feelings of others. Psychopathy also includes other mental quirks as well, and when psychopaths are exposed to the kinds of early-life traumas and abuses that tend to lead to criminal behavior, they do make the most spectacular kinds of criminals.

However, apparently, relatively few psychopaths become criminals, whereas sociopaths very often do, which is striking considering that most modern neurology and psychology experts believe that true sociopathy is relatively rare, whereas true psychopathy is somewhat more common in the general human population.
Thanks for the lesson, but I've actually read a lot about psychopathy previously. I hope other people enjoyed it, though.
The thing you must remember is that sociopathy and psychopathy are NOT philosophies, or ways of thinking, or mindsets. Also they are NOT created by social conditioning. How they get expressed in the person's life is determined by life experience and social conditioning, but the states of sociopathy and psychopathy are thought, by modern science, to be hardwired into the brain from birth. In other words, a person either has fellow feeling with others, or he doesn't.
I don't see how that makes them not different ways of thinking. It all has to do with how they preceive the world and people around them, and to what extend they care. You might think its important to care about the well-being of others, while the sociopath does not. I'm not willing to criticise him for holding an unusual opinion, especially when neither one is demonstrably true.
Now considering your arguments, I am not sure if you are expressing your own real feelings/experiences or if you are exploring an abstract concept as an intellectual exercise. Whichever, you should be aware that what you are talking about -- a total lack of any kind of empathy between human beings that, in and of itself, serves as the foundational standard for controlling interpersonal behavior -- is a hallmark of sociopathy and psychopathy. In other words, that lack does exist, but it is not the norm of human beings. It is an abnormality.
So it would appear.
The vast majority of human beings DO have the feeliings you say do not exist. They may follow those feelings or go against those feelings, but they do have them.
The feelings exist, but they're not sensing what they think they're sensing. They're projecting.
And no, those feelings do not have any source outside the individual human's brain. The source of those feelings is biological.
This is the part I don't get. The source of feelings is cognitive. I feel a certain way because I've experienced something that lead to that feeling. I know what it was, and if it turns out the thoughts that lead to the feeling were mistaken, the feeling vanishes once the thoughts have been corrected.
It is really not different from the fellow feeling that other kinds of animals display as well. We can argue forever about whether humans can have any rational justification for empathy or altruism or cooperation, but there can be no suggestion that birds or wolves or gorillas, etc, can have a rational justification for such things, yet they display precisely the same kind of behaviors amongst themselves every day. Now some people argue that behavior in animals that appears "moral" is somehow completely different from the same behavior that appears "moral" when done by humans, but I personally don't buy those arguments. I think it is far more likely that if both humans and non-humans engage in the same kind of behaviors, the reason for it is probably also the same as well.
That bit isn't really relevant unless I accept your assertion that feelings are necessarily biological.
So since empathy is biologically determined, my statement stands -- the "starting point," as you put it, is you. The self. Each of us begins from the same starting point -- our own brains, and our own sense of ourselves as beings, and all awareness of the world spins out from there. The ability to recognize others as similar to ourselves is the core of empathy. If a person does not feel that recognition, then they will not feel empathy, and there is not a thing that society can do about that, EXCEPT impose rules for that person to follow so that they can live with the rest of us with minimal conflict.

But just because some people are not able to feel empathy, it does not follow that empathy does not exist. Just because some people are not able to formulate a moral framework of their own, it does not follow that morals must be imposed from without. Just because some people cannot judge right from wrong on their own, it does not follow that there is no way to tell right from wrong on one's own.
Doesn't this definition make empathy a projection? Hasn't that been my point?

You can't tell how other people feel. You can only tell how you would feel in their place (given what you know of their place), and empathy involves the projection of your own hypothetical feelings onto them.

But, if I recognise that I have no reason to believe that people react relevantly silimiarly to how I would react in the same situation, then that projection becomes pointless. How I would feel in their place isn't relevant unless I have cause to believe they are relevantly similar.

You seem to believe that other people are relevantly similar to you, but you haven't made a good argument supporting that belief. Do you have cause to believe other people are relevantly similar to you?
You have a fact before you that does not jibe with the worldview expressed in your argument: You have the testimony of many, many people stating that they do feel empathy and that empathy is the foundation of their morality.
And as I've explained, I think their empathy consists of them projecting their emotions onto others, not them detecting the emotions of others. That's not empathy. That's delusion.
This directly contradicts your assertion that empathy does not exist and that morality cannot be based on it. (Because obviously, if someone does something, then that thing can be done, and if people do base their morality on empathy, then it is possible for morality to be based on empathy.)
This argument only holds if it's impossible for commonly held positions to be wrong. Mass delusions happen (there's a good book about this called The Madness of Crowds published in about 1850).
You will not make progress in your argument unless you can reconcile that contradiction. You say there is no feeling called empathy. People stand before you here, declaring that they do in fact feel empathy. Are you going to call us all deluded or dishonest and insist that you and you alone are right? Or are you going to consider the possibility that your concept does not match reality, and give it some more thought?
I'm asking for justification for your (apparently widely held) belief. If you can offer it, then I'm certainly willing to consider the possibility that empathy does actually consist of you detecting the emotions of other people (or even using introspection to predict them with any degree of accuracy). But as yet, I have no cause.

No. "Empathy" does not mean "telepathy". It is astonishing to me not only that you lack it, but that you do not even know what you lack.

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.

I do not appreciate your altering of my words. Saying our beliefs can affect our actions is not the same thing as saying our skin-color can affect our actions.

I am not a religious person, nor do I condemn others so favored.

No, but you do have to cruel to be kind.

And, as it happens, you're wrong.

<snip>
Again, I'll skip the point for point response, because there is much in your post that really can't be responded to. It is your opinion, to which you are entitled and against which there is no argument. Let me say this:

1) The way the brain processes information from stimuli at a neurological level (I'm talking about neurons) =/= a person's opinion. The first is a basic physical function, the second is an abstract intellectual construct. They are not equivalent. So it is not correct to say that sociopathy is an opinion.

2) Whether sociopathy or psychopathy are abnormalities or minority opinions, they are still such a small percentage of the human population that you cannot use them as a standard on which to base an argument about human behavior or thought in general. That is why I said that just because some people lack empathy, you cannot argue that that is proof that there is no such thing as empathy among humans.

3) If you acknowledge that sociopathy and psychopathy affect a small minority of people, and if you acknowledge that the majority of people think the way I and others here have been telling you, why do you still hesitate to consider that maybe there really is such a thing as empathy and maybe you have been wrong about this?

4) As another poster said, empathy is not telepathy. You do not need to know another's mind, and nobody here has said otherwise.

5) Yes, empathy IS a projection of sorts. That is why I said to you that the foundational standard by which you can judge rightness and wrongness (know your own morals, in other words) is yourself. I remind you that I never said anything at all about detecting the emotions of others.

6) I do not need to justify my empathy any more than I need to justify my elbows. I have them. I did not choose to have them. They are just there, a part of me. Just like whatever degree of empathy I have for my fellow beings. If someone is born without elbows, it does not mean that my elbows are a fiction. The same can be said of empathy.

7) I have nothing more I can say about this. If it is not enough to get you to consider the possibility of empathy, then we will have to agree to disagree.

You gotta admit, though, it's pretty funny to watch somebody arguing against the existence of empathy after they've insisted that God is the only source for morality.

Yes, Mr. "Sociopathy Is Just An Opinion," I suppose you do need God to give you morality, if you lack empathy. Wouldn't that have been the point that many of us made many, many pages ago?

Yes.

I care about other people because my parents raised me to be a caring person.

When you say they work best, how are you determining best? By what standard are you measuring the tools?

I am not using a standard. Moral dilemmas are often too complex for standards. What is best in one situation is not best in another. Sometimes you want everyone to go home happy. Sometimes you want to make sure the situation never happens again.

That is why emapthy, compassion and imagination are better. They are more flexible, more adaptable, more applicable to a variety of contexts than a set of standards.

Example: thou shalt not kill.

That's a great standard! I don't kill people. You could say I live by that standard. But I don't think it's a universal truth on which to base a morality. If you killed someone who was trying to rape you, Llewdor, I would not condemn you. In my mind, you would have done a moral act, even though you broke the rule.

You gotta admit, though, it's pretty funny to watch somebody arguing against the existence of empathy after they've insisted that God is the only source for morality.
Mm, yes. Lack of self-awareness ftw, eh?

Yes, Mr. "Sociopathy Is Just An Opinion," I suppose you do need God to give you morality, if you lack empathy. Wouldn't that have been the point that many of us made many, many pages ago?
So true. So exhausting. But then I really do not think Llewdor is actually responding to other people's posts. I mean, he reads them, certainly, but... I'm starting to get the feeling that Llewdor "plays" NSG the way some people play slot machines in casinos -- as if there's some magic combination of words he's looking for, and he is going to just keep pulling that lever until they come up.

Mm, yes. Lack of self-awareness ftw, eh?


So true. So exhausting. But then I really do not think Llewdor is actually responding to other people's posts. I mean, he reads them, certainly, but... I'm starting to get the feeling that Llewdor "plays" NSG the way some people play slot machines in casinos -- as if there's some magic combination of words he's looking for, and he is going to just keep pulling that lever until they come up.

I'm just waiting for him to invoke the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an explanation of why gods are required for morality. Hehe.

I'm just waiting for him to invoke the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an explanation of why gods are required for morality. Hehe.
Also fairies.

Also fairies.

And irreducible complexity. Oh, it's been ages since I last heard about that one... :D

And irreducible complexity. Oh, it's been ages since I last heard about that one... :D

You missed a rather amusing thread involving Good Lifes about a month back on the topic of fine-tuning. His argument was obviously that the complex and consistent nature of the laws of the universe is actually better understood as a result of divine influence than natural processes, but we ultimately led him to suggest that it would disprove fine tuning if a coconut were to magically appear in from of him and do the tango.
It was surreal, but hilarious.

There's an old saying, "By their fruits, shall you know them." I consider this to be a basic truth. You know a person by the life he or she has led, by the results of that life. You know a religion by the results of that religion. This being the case, I think that you can't be religious and moral at the same time (note being religious has nothing to do with belief in God or gods, it has to do with following some idiot body of rules made by some person with an agenda).

I would say that no you don't. I am religous and I have seen plenty of non religous people that are very moralistic good people and religous peopel that are well not so moral.

How would being religious make one more moral? If people are only acting good to get rewarded in some "afterlife" then all they're doing is saying they can be bribed.

Someone once said that anybody can be good or bad, but for a good person to be doing bad things and think them just, it takes religion.

I'd like to find that person and have a little of whatever he or she was smoking.
The first thing that springs to my mind would be the atrocities of numerous Communist regimes, who, in an attempt to replace the supernatural with the mundane, have murdered millions.
Earlier, I mentioned Stalin. Look him up.
Now we could argue all day and night about it, but I think committing the atrocities that have been done in the name of keeping the world secular required a fair bit of thought... that is, these murderers probably didn't think their work was wrong. These people tend to be just as zealous and illogical as the religious people they so deeply hate.
Religion isn't to blame for our problems. You could be Catholic, Muslim, Atheist, or totally ambivalent, and still be highly dangerous. Serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer tend to not give a damn whether there's any higher power or afterlife or not.
Many terrible things have been done in the name of believing, not believing, or in the name of nothing at all. It's the human condition.

How would being religious make one more moral? If people are only acting good to get rewarded in some "afterlife" then all they're doing is saying they can be bribed.

Depends if you place more importance on what makes a moral person, or what makes a moral action.
And of course, not all religious people avoid bad deeds just to avoid going to Hell (or being reincarnated as an insect, or ceasing to exist, or whatever).

How would being religious make one more moral? If people are only acting good to get rewarded in some "afterlife" then all they're doing is saying they can be bribed.
Depends what you mean by "moral." If you mean, "does what a deity wants them to do," then that is moral, by definition. If you mean, "does good for goodness sake," well, not knowing where your concept of goodness comes from, I can't say.

I would like to clear up a misconception that lots of people seem to have here. I can't speak for all religions, but I know that Christians do what they think God wants because they love God, not out of a sense of obligation or fear. I have never heard a minister bring up the threat of hell in a service. The threat is invoked every once in a while, but usually to silent annoying children who won't stop asking their tired parents questions. ("Why do I have to clean my room?" "You'll go to hell if you don't.")

I'm not saying all religious people are foaming at the mouth maniacs, but I've obeserved that as soon as a certain type of person fiercely believes in something abstract, religion or philosophy makes little difference there, they become quite dangerous.
You could say I don't have so much a problem with religion as more with strong beliefs ;)

That's true, but I'm not sure if I would prefer a world where we're all kind of "meh" about our beliefs but live and let live to one where many people are willing to die for what they believe is right. The former scenario seems a little too much like The Giver.

I care about other people because my parents raised me to be a caring person.
So that's hardwired now and not subject to rational investigation?
I am not using a standard. Moral dilemmas are often too complex for standards. What is best in one situation is not best in another. Sometimes you want everyone to go home happy. Sometimes you want to make sure the situation never happens again.

That is why emapthy, compassion and imagination are better. They are more flexible, more adaptable, more applicable to a variety of contexts than a set of standards.
You're dodging the question. You continue to rely on some basis for determining how to resolve moral dilemmas, but you don't see to know what it is.

You refer specifically here to the outcomes you want to acheive. but how do you know what you want, morally speaking? Is it just personal preference (and thus of no interest to anyone else)?

Again, I'll skip the point for point response, because there is much in your post that really can't be responded to. It is your opinion, to which you are entitled and against which there is no argument. Let me say this:

1) The way the brain processes information from stimuli at a neurological level (I'm talking about neurons) =/= a person's opinion. The first is a basic physical function, the second is an abstract intellectual construct. They are not equivalent. So it is not correct to say that sociopathy is an opinion.
But it's not materially different from an opinion. Someone who was physiologically normal could well simply think the welfare of others wasn't important. Behaviourially, they'd be relevantly similar to sociopaths.

Discounting that opinion because you disagree with it set a dangerous precedent.
2) Whether sociopathy or psychopathy are abnormalities or minority opinions, they are still such a small percentage of the human population that you cannot use them as a standard on which to base an argument about human behavior or thought in general. That is why I said that just because some people lack empathy, you cannot argue that that is proof that there is no such thing as empathy among humans.

3) If you acknowledge that sociopathy and psychopathy affect a small minority of people, and if you acknowledge that the majority of people think the way I and others here have been telling you, why do you still hesitate to consider that maybe there really is such a thing as empathy and maybe you have been wrong about this?

4) As another poster said, empathy is not telepathy. You do not need to know another's mind, and nobody here has said otherwise.

5) Yes, empathy IS a projection of sorts. That is why I said to you that the foundational standard by which you can judge rightness and wrongness (know your own morals, in other words) is yourself. I remind you that I never said anything at all about detecting the emotions of others.
If empathy is a projection, and people are not relevantly similar to you (as sociopaths are not, by your own admission), then it fails to describe the states and needs of others. You could then soundly apply your empathy to a situation and, with nothign but good intentions, do people harm because they failed to conform to your assumption of relevant similarity.

Unless you can come up with some reason why people who are not relevantly similar to you don't warrant the same concern as people who are, empathy fails to be universally applicable. It doesn't work.

You gotta admit, though, it's pretty funny to watch somebody arguing against the existence of empathy after they've insisted that God is the only source for morality.
That would only be funny if I held that morality existed.

I argued that god was the only possible source for morality. I then asserted that belief in god was unreasonable. Do the math.
Yes, Mr. "Sociopathy Is Just An Opinion," I suppose you do need God to give you morality, if you lack empathy. Wouldn't that have been the point that many of us made many, many pages ago?
Not quite. While your assertion that empathy is a necessary source of any internal morality, and my assertion that the lack of empathy required any morality to be externally sourced are consistent, we were arguing opposite sides of the same biconditional.

We both held that A iff B, but you thought they were both true, while I thought they were both false.

We both held that A iff B, but you thought they were both true, while I thought they were both false.

No, not mathematical symbolism! It makes it seem so...so...Objectivist.

No, not mathematical symbolism! It makes it seem so...so...Objectivist.

There's nothing wrong with a little formal logic in the midst of debate. All things in moderation, you know.

If empathy is a projection, and people are not relevantly similar to you (as sociopaths are not, by your own admission), then it fails to describe the states and needs of others. You could then soundly apply your empathy to a situation and, with nothing but good intentions, do people harm because they failed to conform to your assumption of relevant similarity.

We do - when we visit other cultures, we can offend people in using body language that is the normality in our own culture. In the west, we see eye contact as a form of indicating honesty, in China, it can be seen as a sign of disrespect.

Unless you can come up with some reason why people who are not relevantly similar to you don't warrant the same concern as people who are, empathy fails to be universally applicable. It doesn't work.

They don't, hence we can enslave other cultures in a way we wouldn't with our own, we treat those who are different from us, well, differently.

The fact is that our sanity is very much based on being able to 'know', or predict what others are thinking and how they react. A mother should tell you the joy when, after about 3-6 months, a baby starts to mimic her expressions. The mimic is the first step in assigning predictions to what that expression means, whether a nod means affirmative or negative for example.

Empathy is that ability to predict and having strong empathy, for which we have far more with, say, family than strangers, is a function of the assuredness you gain from making such a prediction.

Therefore morals are certainly not an objective truth, they're a set of values built from shared empathy where morals may differ from culture to culture.

We understand what causes us pain and therefore we emphathise when we see pain in those we can relate to, something that can extend from family to friends to strangers and animals.

It's clearly an internal construct shaped by external forces, which are values that radiate out from our closest relationships.

If morality was God-imposed, you'd expect all cultures to have similar morality and reactions from predictions, but they don't, they differ greatly.

Clearly they're not ordained from on high.

There's nothing wrong with a little formal logic in the midst of debate. All things in moderation, you know.

I kid. It's just when I start seeing those capital A's and "if and only if" statements, my Ayn Rand Terror Alert is set to orange.

But it's not materially different from an opinion. Someone who was physiologically normal could well simply think the welfare of others wasn't important. Behaviourially, they'd be relevantly similar to sociopaths.
Yes it is. I explained why it is materially different in the post you were responding to. And no, an uncaring person would not be "relevantly similar to sociopaths" because sociopathy is an extreme of not caring, of not being able to care, that goes far beyond what any non-sociopath's behavior could mimic. That's why sociopathy is both abnormal and rare. Any "similarity" between a sociopath and any normal selfish jerk would be so shallow and so strained as to be not relevant to anything.

Discounting that opinion because you disagree with it set a dangerous precedent.
Sociopathy is a clinical description of a personality type that is defined by neurological function. It is not an opinion. Calling it an opinion is like calling blue eyes an opinion. You say you've read about sociopathy and psychopathy? If so, then how can you be so ignorant about them?

If empathy is a projection, and people are not relevantly similar to you (as sociopaths are not, by your own admission), then it fails to describe the states and needs of others. You could then soundly apply your empathy to a situation and, with nothign but good intentions, do people harm because they failed to conform to your assumption of relevant similarity.
That's true. It is one of the basic risks of life with humans. Sometimes you get it wrong. It's why there is an old saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Unless you can come up with some reason why people who are not relevantly similar to you don't warrant the same concern as people who are, empathy fails to be universally applicable. It doesn't work.
This is just more of your patented brand of bullshit and I refuse to play with it. First, you claim empathy doesn't exist. Now you claim it doesn't work. Well, which is it? Because it can't be both. Also who the hell ever said anything about people who are not similar not warranting the same concern as people who are similar? That's a new little twist of nonsense you just made up and mentioned for the first time, and you're trying to use it as the reason why the thing you said doesn't exist can't be universally applicable. You make me laugh at times. You really do.

That would only be funny if I held that morality existed.

<snip>
Thank you, Llewdor, for removing yourself at last from this debate.

Since the topic is "do you have to be religious to be moral?" and you do not believe morality exists, it is obvious that you can have no relevant opinion as to the OP question, since obviously, religion cannot make you moral if there is no such thing as morality. Do the math.

We may now all go back to ignoring you. 'Bye.

Only an idiot would say yes.


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

I find that offensive. I said yes, and I'm sure I have at least 2 brain cells. ;)

I find that offensive. I said yes, and I'm sure I have at least 2 brain cells. ;)

Well, put them to good use then and elaborate why you said yes. ;)

So that's hardwired now and not subject to rational investigation?

I have no idea how you inferred that from my post. Please explain.

You're dodging the question. You continue to rely on some basis for determining how to resolve moral dilemmas, but you don't see to know what it is.

No. You are not getting the point. There is no basis for determining how to resolve moral dilemmas. There is no standard process. There is no list of steps I should follow. You keep assuming I have that, and I keep trying to explain to you that your asumption is false.

Don't look at empathy. compassion and imagination as steps in a process. They are more like tools in a toolbox. Sometimes you need one tool, sometimes another. Sometimes several. But the application of the toool is dependent on the context, on the specific situation. Not on some standard process, or 'basis for determining how to resolve moral dilemmas'.

You refer specifically here to the outcomes you want to acheive. but how do you know what you want, morally speaking? Is it just personal preference (and thus of no interest to anyone else)?

Are you asking how I decide on what outcome I want from the situation? That would depend greatly on the other people involved in the situation. It would also depend on the nature of the situation. Obviously, since it is not dependent solely on me, it cannot just be personal preference.

We do - when we visit other cultures, we can offend people in using body language that is the normality in our own culture. In the west, we see eye contact as a form of indicating honesty, in China, it can be seen as a sign of disrespect.
And yet, I live in the west and cannot bring myself to make eye-contact with people (I find it very unpleasant). By this irrelevant standard, you judge me to be dishonest.
The fact is that our sanity is very much based on being able to 'know', or predict what others are thinking and how they react.
That doesn't make sense to me at all. I don't know what others are thinking or how they will react. There's no secret code that tells me what they're thinking or how they'll react with anything approaching certainty.

And yet, I'm still sane. Other people scare the hell out of me (because they're unpredictable), but that's the cost of living in society.
A mother should tell you the joy when, after about 3-6 months, a baby starts to mimic her expressions. The mimic is the first step in assigning predictions to what that expression means, whether a nod means affirmative or negative for example.[/quoet]
I wonder what my kids will do. My first is due soon, and I'm apparently very hard for people to read because I don't emote.
[quote]Empathy is that ability to predict and having strong empathy, for which we have far more with, say, family than strangers, is a function of the assuredness you gain from making such a prediction.
And people I know well I can predict, to some degree. That makes sense. but people I don't know I can't predict at all, and I fail to see why the rest of you think you can.
Therefore morals are certainly not an objective truth, they're a set of values built from shared empathy where morals may differ from culture to culture.

We understand what causes us pain and therefore we emphathise when we see pain in those we can relate to, something that can extend from family to friends to strangers and animals.
And thus, just like democracy, it necessarily disenfranchises the idiosyncratic.
If morality was God-imposed, you'd expect all cultures to have similar morality and reactions from predictions, but they don't, they differ greatly.
You're assuming that God instructed all cultures similarly.

You're assuming that God instructed all cultures similarly.

And why wouldn't he have?

Yes it is. I explained why it is materially different in the post you were responding to. And no, an uncaring person would not be "relevantly similar to sociopaths" because sociopathy is an extreme of not caring, of not being able to care, that goes far beyond what any non-sociopath's behavior could mimic. That's why sociopathy is both abnormal and rare. Any "similarity" between a sociopath and any normal selfish jerk would be so shallow and so strained as to be not relevant to anything.

Sociopathy is a clinical description of a personality type that is defined by neurological function. It is not an opinion. Calling it an opinion is like calling blue eyes an opinion. You say you've read about sociopathy and psychopathy? If so, then how can you be so ignorant about them?
I wasn't discussing a sociopath; I was discussing someone who's opinions rendered them not materially different from a sociopath.

You clearly hold that such a person cannot exist. I fear you may have studied psychology, and thus equate outward behaviour with internal causes.
That's true. It is one of the basic risks of life with humans. Sometimes you get it wrong.
That's not a risk I'm willing to take.
This is just more of your patented brand of bullshit and I refuse to play with it. First, you claim empathy doesn't exist. Now you claim it doesn't work. Well, which is it? Because it can't be both.
Sure it can. Things that don't exist can't exhibit characteristics. Functioning is a characteristic. As such, if empathy does not exist, it cannot function.
Also who the hell ever said anything about people who are not similar not warranting the same concern as people who are similar?
You did. It's a necessary consequence of your position. Your empathy is the cause of your concern for others (as a root cause of your morality), but you hold that it doesn't apply to people who are not relevantly similar to you. Therefore, people who are not relevantly similar to you are not subject to your moral concern.

If you do have moral concern for people who are not relevantly similar to you, then either you've incorrectly identified empathy as a source for your morality, or you've incorrectly described empathy's applicability to those not relevantly similar to you.

And why wouldn't he have?
Why would he have?

I have no reason to adopt either position.

Thank you, Llewdor, for removing yourself at last from this debate.

Since the topic is "do you have to be religious to be moral?" and you do not believe morality exists, it is obvious that you can have no relevant opinion as to the OP question, since obviously, religion cannot make you moral if there is no such thing as morality. Do the math.

We may now all go back to ignoring you. 'Bye.
I again suggest you read some Wittgenstein.

Even if you cannot know with certainty the truth value of a proposition, you can know with certainty it's truth value relative to the truth value of another proposition.

I don't believe morality exists, but I can hold strong opinions that if it exists it must exhibit certain characteristics.

Why would he have?

I have no reason to adopt either position.

Actually, in the post I responded to, you seemed to be taking the stance that he didn't

I have no idea how you inferred that from my post. Please explain.
If the position is subject to rational investigation, then there should be some further reason why you continue to hold it. That you were taught it as a child doesn't matter (unless you simply haven't investigated it further).
No. You are not getting the point. There is no basis for determining how to resolve moral dilemmas. There is no standard process. There is no list of steps I should follow. You keep assuming I have that, and I keep trying to explain to you that your asumption is false.

Don't look at empathy. compassion and imagination as steps in a process. They are more like tools in a toolbox. Sometimes you need one tool, sometimes another. Sometimes several. But the application of the toool is dependent on the context, on the specific situation. Not on some standard process, or 'basis for determining how to resolve moral dilemmas'.

Are you asking how I decide on what outcome I want from the situation? That would depend greatly on the other people involved in the situation. It would also depend on the nature of the situation. Obviously, since it is not dependent solely on me, it cannot just be personal preference.
Okay, the toolbox analogy is quite good. I think we're actually arguing the same side here, but we're using sufficiently different langauge we haven't noticed.

Were I removing a nut from a bolt, I'd look in my toolbox and find three tools which could do the job - a crescent wrench, a socket wrench, and a hacksaw. The most obvious relevant difference there is that the hacksaw will destroy the bolt, so I have to ask whether I care if the bolt survives. If I do (for whatever reason), then I would prefer, all else being equal, to use one of the wrenches. So then I need to investigate if all else is equal. Can either wrench reach the nut? The crescent wrench needs les sspace above the nut, but more space around the nut. The socket wrench needs more space above the nut, but less around it. If the space available excludes one of the wrenches, I'll use the other. If it excludes both, then all else isn't equal and I'll use the hacksaw. If it excludes neither, I need another level of discrimination. The socket wrench is faster and easier to use than the crescent wrench. There it is.

With the toolbox, there is a standard I follow to determine which tool I use.

Actually, in the post I responded to, you seemed to be taking the stance that he didn't
No, I was objecting to Barringtonia's adoption of one position over the other.

You assumed an excluded middle.

If the position is subject to rational investigation, then there should be some further reason why you continue to hold it. That you were taught it as a child doesn't matter (unless you simply haven't investigated it further).

I see. My parent's teachimgs are one source of moral information, but not the only source. There are many 'further reasons', most of them based on personal experiences and observations. perhaps you could just tell me where you are going with this, so that I can address that.

Okay, the toolbox analogy is quite good. I think we're actually arguing the same side here, but we're using sufficiently different langauge we haven't noticed.
...
With the toolbox, there is a standard I follow to determine which tool I use.

What is this standard?

No, I was objecting to Barringtonia's adoption of one position over the other.

You assumed an excluded middle.

Note my use of the word "seemed" and I assumed nothing, I was merely responding to your post looking for an explanation on 'your' view (which turns out to be a case of my missing something in the exchanges).

I see. My parent's teachimgs are one source of moral information, but not the only source. There are many 'further reasons', most of them based on personal experiences and observations. perhaps you could just tell me where you are going with this, so that I can address that.
I don't understand why people reach the moral conclusions they do, so I'm trying to find the origins of their moral thought. Once I've found it, I try to find out why that origin is important or valuable, and why it's used.
What is this standard?
I just described it through an illustrative example. We agree on this. The mechanism appears to be the same, and we both seek outcomes based on our preferences.

But in my case, I'm not claiming that my preferences carry any moral weight. I want to know what the source of the moral weight of your preferences is.

I don't understand why people reach the moral conclusions they do, so I'm trying to find the origins of their moral thought. Once I've found it, I try to find out why that origin is important or valuable, and why it's used.

I think you'll be out of luck. I have several 'origins' or sources for my moral beliefs and actions. They are important to me for a variety of reasons. In other words, morality is not as linear as you seem to think it is.

I just described it through an illustrative example. We agree on this. The mechanism appears to be the same, and we both seek outcomes based on our preferences.

What if the bolt is rusted? What about torque? What is the weather like where you are dealing with this bolt? What kind of material are the different wrenches made of? Are you doing electrical work on hot equipment? Are you working on car, implying that the bolt is covered in dirty oil?

Your illustrative example did not even begin to deal with these questions. Thus it can not really be considered an example of a standard process, as it can only be applied when the answers to these questions are already known.

But in my case, I'm not claiming that my preferences carry any moral weight. I want to know what the source of the moral weight of your preferences is.

I don't recall discussing my 'preferences' at all. Or their moral weight. Please explain.

I think you'll be out of luck. I have several 'origins' or sources for my moral beliefs and actions. They are important to me for a variety of reasons. In other words, morality is not as linear as you seem to think it is.
But it needs to be enumerable for you to be able to apply it.
What if the bolt is rusted? What about torque? What is the weather like where you are dealing with this bolt? What kind of material are the different wrenches made of? Are you doing electrical work on hot equipment? Are you working on car, implying that the bolt is covered in dirty oil?

Your illustrative example did not even begin to deal with these questions. Thus it can not really be considered an example of a standard process, as it can only be applied when the answers to these questions are already known.
I offered a simple example for the purposes of illustration. All known relevant criteria need to be considered, based on what I want to do with the nut or bolt. But in any given situation, there will be a line of reasoning that I follow, and I'll be able to explain it to someone as I'm doing it.
I don't recall discussing my 'preferences' at all. Or their moral weight. Please explain.
You were discussing the outcomes you want. As such, you were the one to ontroduce preferences into this discussion:
Moral dilemmas are often too complex for standards. What is best in one situation is not best in another. Sometimes you want everyone to go home happy. Sometimes you want to make sure the situation never happens again.
See? You're granting your preferences - what "you want" - moral weight.

But it needs to be enumerable for you to be able to apply it.

Really? How do you enumerate compassion, empathy and imagination? Or are you telling me I don't actually apply these things?

I offered a simple example for the purposes of illustration. All known relevant criteria need to be considered, based on what I want to do with the nut or bolt. But in any given situation, there will be a line of reasoning that I follow, and I'll be able to explain it to someone as I'm doing it.

Is that line of reasoning always the same? No. It is dependent on the situation and its context. Therefore it is not some standard process.

You were discussing the outcomes you want. As such, you were the one to ontroduce preferences into this discussion:

See? You're granting your preferences - what "you want" - moral weight.

No, I was discussing the possible outcomes that the impersonal 'you' wants. I'm not trying to achieve a specific outcome when I resolve a moral dilemma. In fact, I find it useful to specifically refuse to do that. My preferences do not carry any more weight than anyone else's.

And yet, I live in the west and cannot bring myself to make eye-contact with people (I find it very unpleasant). By this irrelevant standard, you judge me to be dishonest.

Yes, perhaps I do, by being unable to make any eye contact I might infer that you're being dishonest - on getting to know you, I would learn that this is a trait of yours - we're adaptable as a species you know.

That doesn't make sense to me at all. I don't know what others are thinking or how they will react. There's no secret code that tells me what they're thinking or how they'll react with anything approaching certainty.

You're being obtuse, you wouldn't be able to function in day to day society without living off a multitude of predictions about how people will act or react - you wouldn't be able to walk down the street without bumping into people continuously.

This isn't solipsism, you are not merely a product of your own brain, you're a product of both internal and external factors and you act and react according to them.

And yet, I'm still sane. Other people scare the hell out of me (because they're unpredictable), but that's the cost of living in society.

If what you're stating is the truth, I'm not sure you are sane but because I think you're taking an extremely narrow view, I can dismiss this.

I wonder what my kids will do. My first is due soon, and I'm apparently very hard for people to read because I don't emote.

And people I know well I can predict, to some degree. That makes sense. but people I don't know I can't predict at all, and I fail to see why the rest of you think you can.

I'm saying we can't, hence the uneasy feeling we get when in a foreign country, the state of confusion and hesitation when merely navigating an airport in a foreign country.

We can adapt very quickly though, we can adapt to the mores of whichever society we're in very quickly, it's a great advantage of being human.

And thus, just like democracy, it necessarily disenfranchises the idiosyncratic.

Perhaps, the world is neither fair nor equal

You're assuming that God instructed all cultures similarly.

Perhaps, yet like all these arguments, there a better basis for morality than God, evolution explains it very well in terms of the advantages of a functioning society.

Look, there are degrees of morals and no two individuals have the same morals, in fact different cultures even have different impetus for morals - in the West we have a guilt-based morality, in China (and sorry for using China each time but it's the one I'm most familiar with) it's an honour-based morality.

This may be my interpretation but you seem to be grasping for a base form of morality, there isn't a universal moral code, it's a function of growing up and learning to act a certain way because you can predict how others will therefore react around you, ensuring less pain and misery to both yourself, and due to empathy, to those around you.

People who need religion to be moral are also the ones that misbehave when no authority figure is around.

Is morality real when it is "enforced" by a deity? If you need a God's carrot or stick just to do the right thing, then how moral are you really?

People who need religion to be moral are also the ones that misbehave when no authority figure is around.

Is morality real when it is "enforced" by a deity? If you need a God's carrot or stick just to do the right thing, then how moral are you really?

Then who decides what the "right" think is? Let's say I've decided it is moral to kill and eat small children, after I steal money from their parents. Who's to say I'm wrong?

This keeps coming up, people pointing out that we shouldn't need a heaven or hell to do what's right. But if you take things to their logical conclusion, morality becomes whatever we want it to be, and is thus meangingless.

Then who decides what the "right" think is? Let's say I've decided it is moral to kill and eat small children, after I steal money from their parents. Who's to say I'm wrong?

This keeps coming up, people pointing out that we shouldn't need a heaven or hell to do what's right. But if you take things to their logical conclusion, morality becomes whatever we want it to be, and is thus meangingless.

The golden rule is sufficient to judge just about any moral dilemna and requires no heaven or hell. It is so rational and logically self-evident that small children can grasp it immediately.

Then who decides what the "right" think is? Let's say I've decided it is moral to kill and eat small children, after I steal money from their parents. Who's to say I'm wrong?

This keeps coming up, people pointing out that we shouldn't need a heaven or hell to do what's right. But if you take things to their logical conclusion, morality becomes whatever we want it to be, and is thus meaningless.

People are separating the idea of individual morality and collective morality when they're really seamless factors within the whole.

Although we have individual aspects to our internal morality, we are shaped by the enormous pressures of societal morality. The two are inseparable.

No one 'decides' what is moral - we may decide what is ethical - it's similar to thinking that evolution 'decides' to give us eyes. Morality is built up through competitive pressures to create a cohesive and functioning society.

The golden rule is sufficient to judge just about any moral dilemna and requires no heaven or hell. It is so rational and logically self-evident that small children can grasp it immediately.

Personally, I'm not overly a fan of the Golden Rule to be honest.

I'm not a fan of any 'rule' when it comes to individuals functioning in a society because while I firmly believe in individual rights, I also believe in a society that can judge whether to overrule those rights.

I'm going to regret using an analogy because they're often picked on by point rather than viewed in comparison however...

Personally, I don't mind another person using heroin, I wouldn't care to infringe on that choice. Yet I do see benefit in society making the decision to ban it. Here, the Golden Rule doesn't work because, disregarding me, one person may believe in individual rights to the detriment of society and just because that person is willing to let people do whatever they like, doesn't mean society can allow that.

I believe in an eternally shifting balance, one that's adaptable.

The golden rule is sufficient to judge just about any moral dilemna and requires no heaven or hell. It is so rational and logically self-evident that small children can grasp it immediately.

What if you're a masochist?

The golden rule is sufficient to judge just about any moral dilemna and requires no heaven or hell. It is so rational and logically self-evident that small children can grasp it immediately.
That's true, it is. In fact, most religious moralities are extensions of this concept. But being self-evident doesn't make something true. It is self-evident and rational that heavier things fall faster. It is self-evident and rational that time and space are absolutes. It is self-evident and rational that a cat cannot be alive and dead at the same time. Unfortunately, these are all also wrong. (Well, the last one I fudged a little, but you get the point: quantum mechanics is not self-evident.)
One could make the argument that the golden rule is the one that keeps the species alive the longest, that it is an evolutionary trait. I think that's true, altruism seems to work for us, but that boils down to morality being based on what gets your genes going the longest. It replaces the arbitrary dictates of a God with the arbitrary goal of Homo sapien procreation (hey, it rhymes).

People are separating the idea of individual morality and collective morality when they're really seamless factors within the whole.

Although we have individual aspects to our internal morality, we are shaped by the enormous pressures of societal morality. The two are inseparable.

No one 'decides' what is moral - we may decide what is ethical - it's similar to thinking that evolution 'decides' to give us eyes. Morality is built up through competitive pressures to create a cohesive and functioning society.

I'm not sure I exactly understand: are you saying we have evolved morality , just as we've evolved hairless bodies or clever little brains? It makes sense, I'm just a little unclear as to what you mean.

I'm not sure I exactly understand: are you saying we have evolved morality , just as we've evolved hairless bodies or clever little brains? It makes sense, I'm just a little unclear as to what you mean.

Yes, I'm saying morality is an evolutionary trait.

The problem when I write is that I skip large chunks of reasoning because I take certain things for granted - bearing that in mind, I'll give it a go...actually, no I won't, I'll try to stand on the shoulders of giants:

First, consider this:

You and your entire village are hiding from enemy soldiers whom will unquestioningly kill all of you on sight. Your baby, in your arms starts to cry. If you quiet the baby, it will smother and die, but your village will be saved. If you let it cry, you, the baby, and the entire village will be killed. Do you smother your baby to save the village?

At this question the test subjects brains literally exploded with activity from within; the scan literally looked as if a war for supremecy were being fought from within as one area after another lit up frantically trying to out-shout the competition. The cognative area ran the numbers again and again screaming about the many over the few. The emotional area pulsed with a resounding "NO!" And other areas of the brain previously unrelated to moral decisions sprang to life. In such difficult moral decisions, the conflict-resolution part of the brain (anterior cingulate cortex) is hard-wired to respond "Don't kill the baby!", but is then warred with by the cognative part (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex), which is conditioned to respond "If you don't kill the baby, you gain nothing and lose everything".

The prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain that predicts the future based upon available data. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is a very specific area of it that is largely shrouded in mystery. However, recent studies are beginning to show that the level of functionality of the DLPFC is inversely related to the severity of Schizophrenia in mental patients. In layman's terms, the DLPFC is the Chief of the Tribe among the warring member-areas of the brain, and has the capability to "silence" them in order to make the most difficult decisions. Schizophrenics, on the other hand, have no such ability, or have it at a diminished capacity.

Those that were able to make the technically logical decision to kill the baby exhibited the highest level of activity in the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex, quite possibly the most powerful area of the brain, and the most likely candidate for ensuring the survival of the species as a whole. The DLPFC is also almost entirely exclusive to humans and primates.

Then, if you have the time, you can read this:

EDIT: I'm changing from Pinker actually, I don't fully agree with his views, arrogant of me but hey, that's me :)

The Evolution of Moral Values (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-63257724.html)

Placing Pinker back due to reasons written below:

Stephen Pinker - The Moral Instinct (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html)

First, consider this:



Then, if you have the time, you can read this:

Stephen Pinker - The Moral Instinct (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html)

I was just reading something similar, about people who have "ventromedial prefrontal cortext" (VMPFC). For whatever reason, these people are more utilitarian than others, more likely to do something like kill the baby, or push a person in front of a train to save five others. I haven't read the article by Pinker, thank you for supplying it.

I'd like to quote something from the article I read, by David Pizarro. Pizarro has been talking about whether an emotionless, rational person would be morally superior to a normal human. While I don't completely agree with its sentiments, I found it too amusing to let go unmentioned:
But for most of us, being good utilitarians would require sacrificing emotions that, although they might make us morally superior, would also make us jerks.

I was just reading something similar, about people who have "ventromedial prefrontal cortext" (VMPFC). For whatever reason, these people are more utilitarian than others, more likely to do something like kill the baby, or push a person in front of a train to save five others. I haven't read the article by Pinker, thank you for supplying it.

I'd like to quote something from the article I read, by David Pizarro. Pizarro has been talking about whether an emotionless, rational person would be morally superior to a normal human. While I don't completely agree with its sentiments, I found it too amusing to let go unmentioned:

Ha ha, read Pinker, I've changed my preferred link, the guy's religious after all despite admitting that Socrates blew away the need for God in morality.

EDIT: I'm utterly wrong on this irrelevant point

It's rather like scientists who wonder at the vast intricacies of space and come to the conclusion that there's something greater than them - possibly, but certainly not necessary.

The best book I read was On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins, it's not really about morality so much as how the brain works but it really blew my mind in terms of thinking about why we do things over how we do things.

For more info: http://www.onintelligence.org/

Ha ha, read Pinker, I’ve changed my preferred link, the guy’s religious after all despite admitting that Socrates blew away the need for God in morality.
You mean Pinker’s religious? Or the other guy?

I’d second Barringtonia’s original recommendation of Pinker’s work for anyone interested in a great introduction to much of the philosophy of mind/morality talked about above, especially the books How The Mind Works and The Blank Slate.

Ha ha, read Pinker, I've changed my preferred link, the guy's religious after all despite admitting that Socrates blew away the need for God in morality.

It's rather like scientists who wonder at the vast intricacies of space and come to the conclusion that there's something greater than them - possibly, but certainly not necessary.

The best book I read was On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins, it's not really about morality so much as how the brain works but it really blew my mind in terms of thinking about why we do things over how we do things.

For more info: http://www.onintelligence.org/

The Pinker article was excellent. I especially liked the five spheres of morality, which, for people who haven't read the article are harm, fairness, group loyalty, authority, and purity. All of these have evolutionary basis, and rules of morality can be extrapolated from them. It's probably the best objective analysis of where morals come from that I've ever seen.

I'm off to read your other link. I hope I enjoy it as much as the first.

You mean Pinker’s religious? Or the other guy?

I’d second Barringtonia’s original recommendation of Pinker’s work for anyone interested in a great introduction to much of the philosophy of mind/morality talked about above, especially the books How The Mind Works and The Blank Slate.

You know - my mind suddenly threw up the idea that Pinker was the guy who thought religion and evolution were entirely compatible - I'm doubting that thought and I'm not sure where the correlation came from - I was just, suddenly. worried that someone would point this out and debase the point.

I should have just let the information stand - it is a very good article and, even if he was, I shouldn't have let it bother me - too long on NSG :)

So let me get this straight...


Not only am I deeply in pain and angry at God because Im an athiest, but proof of my eternal pain is because I get irritated when religious bullshit is shoved down my throat?

Oh....my soul hurts....it hurts so much...maybe...maybe I do need God.:rolleyes:


:sniper:


The reason athiests care about seeing religion everywhere we fucking go is because it shows a complete lack of respect for our belief that God is a load of bullshit and the equivalent to believing in Santa Claus. I garunfuckingtee you that if Islam was the dominante American religion, and if the messege "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet" was written everywhere you went, that Christians would be infuriated.


Its so easy for the majority to tell the minority to just get over it.:headbang:

The number of religious references I see on an average day are miniscule. Now as for "complete disrepect," I really don't see the logic there. Complete disobedience maybe, but not complete disrespect.

The number of religious references I see on an average day are miniscule.


Obviously you never look at your money

You know–my mind suddenly threw up the idea that Pinker was the guy who thought religion and evolution were entirely compatible–I’m doubting that thought and I’m not sure where the correlation came from
I don’t think so; it doesn’t sound like Pinker’s position.

You may have Pinker confused with Kenneth Miller? That's the author of "Finding Darwin's God"; testified in the Dover case against the scientific merits of "intelligent design".

You may have Pinker confused with Kenneth Miller? That's the author of "Finding Darwin's God"; testified in the Dover case against the scientific merits of "intelligent design".

It was bothering me so I looked up some things and I think it was actually sparked by the idea of Gould's non-overlapping magisteria.

Gould isn't religious either though I do hear the NOMA argument as a defense for belief in God - it was really a misfiring series of connections in my own brain.

Not that God truly matters in this particular line of debate, which I think is to clarify that there's a basis for morals over the idea that we have neither morals nor empathy.

Of course not.

That's true, but I'm not sure if I would prefer a world where we're all kind of "meh" about our beliefs but live and let live to one where many people are willing to die for what they believe is right. The former scenario seems a little too much like The Giver.

Personally, I think the world could do with a whole lot more "meh", and a whole lot less dying for nothing.... but that's just me.

People who need religion to be moral are also the ones that misbehave when no authority figure is around.
So, all people?

Really? How do you enumerate compassion, empathy and imagination?
I don't know. That's why I'm asking.
My preferences do not carry any more weight than anyone else's.
Your preferences are the only ones that are known to you.

So, all people?
And there it is again.

Look, if YOU have no internal moral compass, and if YOU require the presence of an authority figure to keep you in line, that's your problem. Kindly don't project your personal failures onto everybody else. If you lack a conscience then the problem is with you. Either you are mentally ill, or you're just a jerk.

And there it is again.

Look, if YOU have no internal moral compass, and if YOU require the presence of an authority figure to keep you in line, that's your problem. Kindly don't project your personal failures onto everybody else. If you lack a conscience then the problem is with you. Either you are mentally ill, or you're just a jerk.

I agree, which is why unlike the Qu'ran which is basically a rulebook (I'm exaggerating a little here, but in my experience the Qu'ran is fairly arbitrary), the Bible is written out as parable and story which must be thought through and applied personally, rather then merely memorized and rehearsed.

It's also called Bible, or library, instead of personal authority figure.

Yes, perhaps I do, by being unable to make any eye contact I might infer that you're being dishonest - on getting to know you, I would learn that this is a trait of yours - we're adaptable as a species you know.
And that initial inference is what I'm complaining about. By adopting a position in the absence of supporting evidence, you're introducing a confirmation bias into future reasoning.
You're being obtuse, you wouldn't be able to function in day to day society without living off a multitude of predictions about how people will act or react - you wouldn't be able to walk down the street without bumping into people continuously.
I have a lot of trouble in society. I don't like walking on busy streets, and when meeting others I generally stop and wait for them to pass rather than trying to navigate around them. In dense crowds I find it easiest to move quite quickly so that the relative speed of the other people becomes effectively zero, and thus I don't need to worry about their movement. Plus, it gets me out of the crowd faster; I hate crowds.
This isn't solipsism, you are not merely a product of your own brain, you're a product of both internal and external factors and you act and react according to them.
That sentence is sufficiently poorly structured that I have no idea what it means.
I'm saying we can't, hence the uneasy feeling we get when in a foreign country, the state of confusion and hesitation when merely navigating an airport in a foreign country.
But you're willing to predict people from your own society even though you've never met them.
Perhaps, the world is neither fair nor equal
Yes, but here you've just demonstrated that morality is neither fair nor equal. Does that sound moral to you?
Perhaps, yet like all these arguments, there a better basis for morality than God, evolution explains it very well in terms of the advantages of a functioning society.
Evolutionary arguments tend to break down once the participants in that "functioning society" are rational. Instinct suddenly stops working.
Look, there are degrees of morals and no two individuals have the same morals, in fact different cultures even have different impetus for morals - in the West we have a guilt-based morality, in China (and sorry for using China each time but it's the one I'm most familiar with) it's an honour-based morality.

This may be my interpretation but you seem to be grasping for a base form of morality, there isn't a universal moral code, it's a function of growing up and learning to act a certain way because you can predict how others will therefore react around you, ensuring less pain and misery to both yourself, and due to empathy, to those around you.
But doesn't that mean that morality is a pointless area of investigation because it doesn't exist outside your own head (and given that, does it really exist at all?)?

You've shown that morality, as you've described, isn't fair. but fairness is often appealed to in moral arguments. The entire concept of morality seems nonsensical.

I don't know. That's why I'm asking.

You're the one who said that things must enumerable to be applied. I apply empathy, compassion and imagination. Therefore, either those things can be enumerated, or you are wrong about your belief that things must enumerable to be applied.

Your preferences are the only ones that are known to you.

Unless I ask someone, which I would probably do.

You're the one who said that things must enumerable to be applied. I apply empathy, compassion and imagination. Therefore, either those things can be enumerated, or you are wrong about your belief that things must enumerable to be applied.
Of you're wrong that you apply them, or you're wrong that that application has anything to do with morality.
Unless I ask someone, which I would probably do.
Yes, because testimony is infallible.

Why do people lie to political pollsters?

in the West we have a guilt-based morality
This might warrant its own thread.

This might warrant its own thread.

I'm not going to respond to your last post in the hope you've read the Pinker article.

However, I started a thread on this point before, it failed - hope yours does better :)

And there it is again.

Look, if YOU have no internal moral compass, and if YOU require the presence of an authority figure to keep you in line, that's your problem. Kindly don't project your personal failures onto everybody else. If you lack a conscience then the problem is with you. Either you are mentally ill, or you're just a jerk.
I don't understand this. It is silly to do only what's right out of fear of supernatural punishment, but it's fine to listen to the voices in your head? Now, medically, someone without a moral compass is probably a sociopath. But what's wrong with being a sociopath?

Personally, I think the world could do with a whole lot more "meh", and a whole lot less dying for nothing.... but that's just me.
That'd make a good campaign slogan: "More 'Meh' for the Masses."

I don't understand this. It is silly to do only what's right out of fear of supernatural punishment, but it's fine to listen to the voices in your head? Now, medically, someone without a moral compass is probably a sociopath. But what's wrong with being a sociopath?

What's wrong with being a sociopath is their effect upon society. Their pathological selfishness (which goes beyond easily imaginable limits for non-sociopaths) is such that they cannot help but be predators upon other people. If a sociopath lived in total isolation (all alone on a mountaintop, maybe), there would be nothing wrong with being one. But of course, if they lived in social isolation, they wouldn't really be socio-paths, would they?

But that is beside the point.

The point of Bottle's response to Llewdor (which I would have posted myself, if she hadn't beaten me to it), is that Llewdor has been seeking to deny the very existence of empathy because he doesn't have any. (Or it seems that he is saying he doesn't have any, from the way he structures his statements; it's hard to tell if he's really talking about himself or something completely abstract).

Further, he is arguing as if there is something "wrong" with thinking that one has empathy, as if there is some kind of nonsense involved in suggesting that people might be able to know their own feelings. Even though he accepts that the majority of people have a feeling that they call empathy, he still tries to argue that the non-normal, minority condition of having no empathy is actually the normal human condition (see his exchanges with Gift-of-god, above).

Bottle counters that with suggesting that, if anyone has a problem, it might be Llewdor's person with no empathy, because such a person is in an extreme minority, does not exhibit normal brain function, and is unable to live harmoniously with other people (who he will have a hard time escaping in the modern world).

The bottom line is that the fact that people exist who do not feel empathy does not imply in any way that nobody feels empathy, as Llewdor would have us believe. The fact that some people do not use their own empathy as a foundation for the morals they follow does not in any way imply that nobody does, as Llewdor would have us believe. His entire argument consists of trying to convince us that his experience is really ours, yet he has absolutely no basis for making such an assertion.

In other words, he is trying to project his personal thoughts/experiences onto other people -- not to compare others to himself but rather to claim simultaneously that we are exactly like him and that it is impossible to know that people are similar to each other. (That's not his only self-contradiction, either; he wants to argue against the existence of empathy and argue about appropriate and inappropriate ways to apply empathy at the same time, too.)

Or you're wrong that you apply them, or you're wrong that that application has anything to do with morality.

No, I don't think so. I think I'll trust my own observations before I trust your theories.

Yes, because testimony is infallible.

Why do people lie to political pollsters?

What does this have to do with anything?

I don't understand this. It is silly to do only what's right out of fear of supernatural punishment, but it's fine to listen to the voices in your head?

Again, if you think that empathy requires hearing voices, the problem is with YOU.

Seek help. Please don't assume that all people share your pathology.


Now, medically, someone without a moral compass is probably a sociopath. But what's wrong with being a sociopath?
From the point of view of the sociopath? Possibly nothing, though some sociopaths are aware that their mental state tends to result in harmful or counterproductive behaviors. Believe it or not, there's actually a range of personality types among people who have antisocial personality disorders. They have a particular pathology in common, but they are still individuals.

From the point of view of a clinician? Sociopaths have demonstrable deficits in certain types of mental processing. It's like how a person who is hypoglycemic has a deficit in one type of physiological processing.

From the point of view of a non-sociopath? Sociopaths don't give a shit what non-sociopaths think about them. That tends to make sociopaths rather less likely to accommodate the wishes/needs of others, and rather more likely to step on any toes which might happen to be in their path. That's why most people tend to not like sociopaths.

We're talking about morality, here, so everything is 100% subjective.

What does this have to do with anything?


People lie to pollsters for many reasons, I would hazzard a guess that mostly they lie as an indirect way of communicating that their vote (which remember is a secret ballot in most democratic countries) is their bussiness.

That I would say has a lot to do with morality. Why do we lie about anything?

Why do we lie about anything?
Because humans are pragmatic primates who learn from experience. :)

From the point of view of a clinician? Sociopaths have demonstrable deficits in certain types of mental processing. It's like how a person who is hypoglycemic has a deficit in one type of physiological processing.
Neurotypiocals have demonstrable deficits in certain types of mental processing compared to autists. Does that mean there's something wrong with neurotypicals?

I'm not going to respond to your last post in the hope you've read the Pinker article.
Reading it now. It appears to have serious problems.
The first hallmark of moralization is that the rules it invokes are felt to be universal. Prohibitions of rape and murder, for example, are felt not to be matters of local custom but to be universally and objectively warranted. One can easily say, “I don’t like brussels sprouts, but I don’t care if you eat them,” but no one would say, “I don’t like killing, but I don’t care if you murder someone.”
Why wouldn't anyone say that? It's a reasonably common position in the abortion debate.
The other hallmark is that people feel that those who commit immoral acts deserve to be punished. Not only is it allowable to inflict pain on a person who has broken a moral rule; it is wrong not to, to “let them get away with it.” People are thus untroubled in inviting divine retribution or the power of the state to harm other people they deem immoral.
And here's a foundationless acceptance of the concept of desert.
We all know what it feels like when the moralization switch flips inside us — the righteous glow, the burning dudgeon, the drive to recruit others to the cause. The psychologist Paul Rozin has studied the toggle switch by comparing two kinds of people who engage in the same behavior but with different switch settings. Health vegetarians avoid meat for practical reasons, like lowering cholesterol and avoiding toxins. Moral vegetarians avoid meat for ethical reasons: to avoid complicity in the suffering of animals. By investigating their feelings about meat-eating, Rozin showed that the moral motive sets off a cascade of opinions. Moral vegetarians are more likely to treat meat as a contaminant — they refuse, for example, to eat a bowl of soup into which a drop of beef broth has fallen. They are more likely to think that other people ought to be vegetarians, and are more likely to imbue their dietary habits with other virtues, like believing that meat avoidance makes people less aggressive and bestial.
Here's a good argument that morality encourages or requires irrationality. In fact, the next five paragraphs expand on and improve that argument.

The entire rationalization section supports this as well.
But consider these situations, originally devised by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt:

Julie is traveling in France on summer vacation from college with her brother Mark. One night they decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. Julie was already taking birth-control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy the sex but decide not to do it again. They keep the night as a special secret, which makes them feel closer to each other. What do you think about that — was it O.K. for them to make love?

A woman is cleaning out her closet and she finds her old American flag. She doesn’t want the flag anymore, so she cuts it up into pieces and uses the rags to clean her bathroom.

A family’s dog is killed by a car in front of their house. They heard that dog meat was delicious, so they cut up the dog’s body and cook it and eat it for dinner.

Most people immediately declare that these acts are wrong and then grope to justify why they are wrong.
Rationalization is necessarily irrational. The reasoning should always come before the conclusion. When reading this the first time, by immediate gut reaction to the question "was it OK for them [Julie and Mark] to make love?" was to ask "Why not?"

Jumping to a conclusion first is crazy behaviour, and I can't imagine why anyone would do it.

I also want to point out one passage that contains a glaring inconsistency.
The gap between people’s convictions and their justifications is also on display in the favorite new sandbox for moral psychologists, a thought experiment devised by the philosophers Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson called the Trolley Problem. On your morning walk, you see a trolley car hurtling down the track, the conductor slumped over the controls. In the path of the trolley are five men working on the track, oblivious to the danger. You are standing at a fork in the track and can pull a lever that will divert the trolley onto a spur, saving the five men. Unfortunately, the trolley would then run over a single worker who is laboring on the spur. Is it permissible to throw the switch, killing one man to save five? Almost everyone says “yes.”
And by saying yes, they're offering moral approval for murder, something Pinker already said no one does. By throwing the switch, you're actively killing one man. By not throwing the switch, you're failing to take part in whatever is happening.

Saying "yes" here disproves Pinker's own point.

Oh, and I'd totally kick someone out of the lifeboat.
The stirrings of morality emerge early in childhood. Toddlers spontaneously offer toys and help to others and try to comfort people they see in distress. And according to the psychologists Elliot Turiel and Judith Smetana, preschoolers have an inkling of the difference between societal conventions and moral principles. Four-year-olds say that it is not O.K. to wear pajamas to school (a convention) and also not O.K. to hit a little girl for no reason (a moral principle). But when asked whether these actions would be O.K. if the teacher allowed them, most of the children said that wearing pajamas would now be fine but that hitting a little girl would still not be.
Newsflash. Children aren't rational.

Anyway, these children could have learned these answers by experience. They know they're allowed to wear pyjamas at home if the relevant authority figure (mother) says so, and at school the relevant authority figure is the teacher. But they likely have no experience of violence being permitted by an authority figure.

Is anyone surprised when a four-year-old can't work his way through a though experiment?

The entire Universal Morality section seems to question its own arguments toward the end, as well. I was going to raise the issue of languages without structured grammar (like Icelandic) to counter Chomsky's point, but Pinker makes that unnecessary.
When anthropologists like Richard Shweder and Alan Fiske survey moral concerns across the globe, they find that a few themes keep popping up from amid the diversity. People everywhere, at least in some circumstances and with certain other folks in mind, think it’s bad to harm others and good to help them. They have a sense of fairness: that one should reciprocate favors, reward benefactors and punish cheaters. They value loyalty to a group, sharing and solidarity among its members and conformity to its norms. They believe that it is right to defer to legitimate authorities and to respect people with high status. And they exalt purity, cleanliness and sanctity while loathing defilement, contamination and carnality.
The first one - harm - I get. But while I do value fairness, that's not what I think fairness is (partly because it includes an implicit recognition of desert). I don't think loyalty has intrinsic value, I don't value status, and I don't value purity.
The exact number of themes depends on whether you’re a lumper or a splitter, but Haidt counts five — harm, fairness, community (or group loyalty), authority and purity — and suggests that they are the primary colors of our moral sense. Not only do they keep reappearing in cross-cultural surveys, but each one tugs on the moral intuitions of people in our own culture. Haidt asks us to consider how much money someone would have to pay us to do hypothetical acts like the following:

Stick a pin into your palm.

Stick a pin into the palm of a child you don’t know. (Harm.)

Accept a wide-screen TV from a friend who received it at no charge because of a computer error.

Accept a wide-screen TV from a friend who received it from a thief who had stolen it from a wealthy family. (Fairness.)

Say something bad about your nation (which you don’t believe) on a talk-radio show in your nation.

Say something bad about your nation (which you don’t believe) on a talk-radio show in a foreign nation. (Community.)

Slap a friend in the face, with his permission, as part of a comedy skit.

Slap your minister in the face, with his permission, as part of a comedy skit. (Authority.)

Attend a performance-art piece in which the actors act like idiots for 30 minutes, including flubbing simple problems and falling down on stage.

Attend a performance-art piece in which the actors act like animals for 30 minutes, including crawling around naked and urinating on stage. (Purity.)

In each pair, the second action feels far more repugnant.
Except it doesn't. The first one, with the pin, I agree with that one not because I'm harmign the child, but because I don't have the child's permission.

But the rest I view equivalently. I accept the TV both times because I'm simly accepting a gift - I didn't steal anything. I do not espouse false opinions on the radio, regardless of who's listening (because doing so would make me incorrect). I would slap both my friend and my minister, because I have permission (compare that to the child and the pin), and assuming I'm interested in the art I have no problem with either performance piece.

There are some subsequent questions in this section, but much of the behaviour can be explained with prudential motivators rather than moral ones. And I'm not too concerned that monkeys might behave irrationally.

The Juggling the Spheres section doesn't seem to warrant comment. It's not asserting anything.

The attempt to dissect our moral intuitions can look like an attempt to debunk them. Evolutionary psychologists seem to want to unmask our noblest motives as ultimately self-interested — to show that our love for children, compassion for the unfortunate and sense of justice are just tactics in a Darwinian struggle to perpetuate our genes. The explanation of how different cultures appeal to different spheres could lead to a spineless relativism, in which we would never have grounds to criticize the practice of another culture, no matter how barbaric, because “we have our kind of morality and they have theirs.” And the whole enterprise seems to be dragging us to an amoral nihilism, in which morality itself would be demoted from a transcendent principle to a figment of our neural circuitry.

In reality, none of these fears are warranted, and it’s important to see why not.
This should be good. I would agree with much of that paragraph. How relevant is morality if it's just a figment of your imagination?
Nor does reciprocal altruism — the evolutionary rationale behind fairness — imply that people do good deeds in the cynical expectation of repayment down the line. We all know of unrequited good deeds, like tipping a waitress in a city you will never visit again and falling on a grenade to save platoonmates.
Nice anecdotes.
In his classic 1971 article, Trivers, the biologist, showed how natural selection could push in the direction of true selflessness. The emergence of tit-for-tat reciprocity, which lets organisms trade favors without being cheated, is just a first step. A favor-giver not only has to avoid blatant cheaters (those who would accept a favor but not return it) but also prefer generous reciprocators (those who return the biggest favor they can afford) over stingy ones (those who return the smallest favor they can get away with). Since it’s good to be chosen as a recipient of favors, a competition arises to be the most generous partner around. More accurately, a competition arises to appear to be the most generous partner around, since the favor-giver can’t literally read minds or see into the future. A reputation for fairness and generosity becomes an asset.

Now this just sets up a competition for potential beneficiaries to inflate their reputations without making the sacrifices to back them up. But it also pressures the favor-giver to develop ever-more-sensitive radar to distinguish the genuinely generous partners from the hypocrites. This arms race will eventually reach a logical conclusion. The most effective way to seem generous and fair, under harsh scrutiny, is to be generous and fair. In the long run, then, reputation can be secured only by commitment.
Wait a second. That's a refutation of the previous point. That is itself an arugment that selfless behaviour is done in the cynical expectation of repayment down the line. What?
The scientific outlook has taught us that some parts of our subjective experience are products of our biological makeup and have no objective counterpart in the world. The qualitative difference between red and green, the tastiness of fruit and foulness of carrion, the scariness of heights and prettiness of flowers are design features of our common nervous system, and if our species had evolved in a different ecosystem or if we were missing a few genes, our reactions could go the other way. Now, if the distinction between right and wrong is also a product of brain wiring, why should we believe it is any more real than the distinction between red and green? And if it is just a collective hallucination, how could we argue that evils like genocide and slavery are wrong for everyone, rather than just distasteful to us?
Excellent question. Again, I look forward to the answer.
Putting God in charge of morality is one way to solve the problem, of course, but Plato made short work of it 2,400 years ago. Does God have a good reason for designating certain acts as moral and others as immoral? If not — if his dictates are divine whims — why should we take them seriously? Suppose that God commanded us to torture a child. Would that make it all right, or would some other standard give us reasons to resist? And if, on the other hand, God was forced by moral reasons to issue some dictates and not others — if a command to torture a child was never an option — then why not appeal to those reasons directly?
Why can't morality be arbitrary? As long as there's a reason to listen to it - God said so - the arbitrariness doesn't matter.
The only other option is that moral truths exist in some abstract Platonic realm, there for us to discover, perhaps in the same way that mathematical truths (according to most mathematicians) are there for us to discover.
Pinker's a moral realist? Seriously?
One is the prevalence of nonzero-sum games. In many arenas of life, two parties are objectively better off if they both act in a nonselfish way than if each of them acts selfishly. You and I are both better off if we share our surpluses, rescue each other’s children in danger and refrain from shooting at each other, compared with hoarding our surpluses while they rot, letting the other’s child drown while we file our nails or feuding like the Hatfields and McCoys. Granted, I might be a bit better off if I acted selfishly at your expense and you played the sucker, but the same is true for you with me, so if each of us tried for these advantages, we’d both end up worse off. Any neutral observer, and you and I if we could talk it over rationally, would have to conclude that the state we should aim for is the one in which we both are unselfish. These spreadsheet projections are not quirks of brain wiring, nor are they dictated by a supernatural power; they are in the nature of things.
Naturally, if you let the participants in the Prisoners' Dilemma discuss strategy, you get a different outcome. This still supports the cynicism Pinker inadvertantly supported earlier.
The other external support for morality is a feature of rationality itself: that it cannot depend on the egocentric vantage point of the reasoner. If I appeal to you to do anything that affects me — to get off my foot, or tell me the time or not run me over with your car — then I can’t do it in a way that privileges my interests over yours (say, retaining my right to run you over with my car) if I want you to take me seriously. Unless I am Galactic Overlord, I have to state my case in a way that would force me to treat you in kind. I can’t act as if my interests are special just because I’m me and you’re not, any more than I can persuade you that the spot I am standing on is a special place in the universe just because I happen to be standing on it.
Again, of course, but that doesn't require that I hold that my interests aren't special just because they're mine.

This piece gets less as less coherent as it progresses. The last page doesn't really say anything at all. The conclusion isn't supported by his facts

Except it doesn't. The first one, with the pin, I agree with that one not because I'm harming the child, but because I don't have the child's permission.

I've wasted 10 minutes of my life reading through your post.

Read what you're writing and try to apply it to the real world, what you'd really do rather than some 'in your brain lack of emotion' response.

Are you honestly saying that if a child asked you to hurt them, you'd have no compunction in doing so, that it's merely about permission?

I've wasted 10 minutes of my life reading through your post.
You're the one who wanted me to respond to that dreadful article.
Read what you're writing and try to apply it to the real world, what you'd really do rather than some 'in your brain lack of emotion' response.
Do your responses not come from your brain?
Are you honestly saying that if a child asked you to hurt them, you'd have no compunction in doing so, that it's merely about permission?
In this scenario, I'm being paid to stick that pin in the child's palm. For all I know, I had to offer the child kickbacks in order to secure consent. What's wrong with that? It might be unpleasant for both of us, but the moral angle seems to have been dealt with through the consent.

The thing about this thread that bothers me the most is Muravyets not responsing to post 329.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13410949&postcount=329

I spent a lot of time cornering him like that, and then he just left.

"Cornering"? All you did was exhibit your continued inability to understand. She was not the first to eventually tire of dealing with you.

Llewdor that's an epic tl;dr

One last try:

Imagine yourself in a room, in which there are three chairs.

In one chair is a non-descript man, in another is an eight year old child and you're in the third.

You have a gun, with instructions to shoot either the man, the child or yourself - if you take no action, all of you will be killed in 3 minutes.

Who do you shoot?

According to your argument, you would not care whether you shot the child or the man, as long as you yourself lived.

Yet, for the rest of us, we'd have a battle between emotion and logic about, most likely, whether to shoot ourselves or the man.

If it came down to a decision between shooting the man or child only, most of us would shoot the man.

Why? Why would we do this, under your logic, what is the possible difference in terms of the decision we make?

The question is not to ask which is the correct moral decision, the question is asked so that you can question whether there's any difference whatsoever between who we choose to shoot.

If there is a difference, that is a construct of morals - what would you call it?

One last try:

Imagine yourself in a room, in which there are three chairs.

In one chair is a non-descript man, in another is an eight year old child and you're in the third.

You have a gun, with instructions to shoot either the man, the child or yourself - if you take no action, all of you will be killed in 3 minutes.

Who do you shoot?

According to your argument, you would not care whether you shot the child or the man, as long as you yourself lived.

Yet, for the rest of us, we'd have a battle between emotion and logic about, most likely, whether to shoot ourselves or the man.

If it came down to a decision between shooting the man or child only, most of us would shoot the man.

Why? Why would we do this, under your logic, what is the possible difference in terms of the decision we make?

The question is not to ask which is the correct moral decision, the question is asked so that you can question whether there's any difference whatsoever between who we choose to shoot.

If there is a difference, that is a construct of morals - what would you call it?

I would shoot them both, it's the only way to be fair.

I would shoot them both, it's the only way to be fair.

You are like Solomon in your wisdom.

Neurotypiocals have demonstrable deficits in certain types of mental processing compared to autists. Does that mean there's something wrong with neurotypicals?
No.

And no, I'm not going to engage in a lengthy discussion in which I explain Psych 101 to you. This point is basically the first one you will learn if you crack a clinical psych book, so please feel free to do so on your own.

One last try:

Imagine yourself in a room, in which there are three chairs.

In one chair is a non-descript man, in another is an eight year old child and you're in the third.

You have a gun, with instructions to shoot either the man, the child or yourself - if you take no action, all of you will be killed in 3 minutes.

Who do you shoot?

According to your argument, you would not care whether you shot the child or the man, as long as you yourself lived.

Yet, for the rest of us, we'd have a battle between emotion and logic about, most likely, whether to shoot ourselves or the man.

If it came down to a decision between shooting the man or child only, most of us would shoot the man.

Why? Why would we do this, under your logic, what is the possible difference in terms of the decision we make?

The question is not to ask which is the correct moral decision, the question is asked so that you can question whether there's any difference whatsoever between who we choose to shoot.

If there is a difference, that is a construct of morals - what would you call it?

I would just shoot one of them at random, I'm not dying to save someone I don't know and care about ;)

<snip>
The thing about this thread that bothers me the most is Muravyets not responsing to post 329.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13410949&postcount=329

I spent a lot of time cornering him like that, and then he just left.
You didn't corner anyone, Llewdor. That post is nothing but another rehash of everything you've been saying all along, which I specifically told you I would no longer respond to because I was tired of repeating myself. You may enjoy jacking off in public the same way over and over, but I need some variety to keep me interested.

Sorry for the vulgarity, but I mean, honestly, really, come on. You said nothing new in that post and have said nothing new since then. Everything you think you are being so clever and "Ah-ha!" about is just redundant, and has already been countered and debunked.

But now you know that I didn't leave. I'm still waiting for you to come up with something -- anything.

I now return the thread to its regularly schedule repeat episodes of "Days of Our Llewdor."

One last try:

Imagine yourself in a room, in which there are three chairs.

In one chair is a non-descript man, in another is an eight year old child and you're in the third.

You have a gun, with instructions to shoot either the man, the child or yourself - if you take no action, all of you will be killed in 3 minutes.

Who do you shoot?

According to your argument, you would not care whether you shot the child or the man, as long as you yourself lived.

Yet, for the rest of us, we'd have a battle between emotion and logic about, most likely, whether to shoot ourselves or the man.

If it came down to a decision between shooting the man or child only, most of us would shoot the man.

Why? Why would we do this, under your logic, what is the possible difference in terms of the decision we make?

The question is not to ask which is the correct moral decision, the question is asked so that you can question whether there's any difference whatsoever between who we choose to shoot.

If there is a difference, that is a construct of morals - what would you call it?

Shoot the child of course. Children are annoying. Besides, one can always make a new child.

Llewdor that's an epic tl;dr
I was asked to respond to a 5,000 word document. What did you expect?

One last try:

Imagine yourself in a room, in which there are three chairs.

In one chair is a non-descript man, in another is an eight year old child and you're in the third.

You have a gun, with instructions to shoot either the man, the child or yourself - if you take no action, all of you will be killed in 3 minutes.

Who do you shoot?

According to your argument, you would not care whether you shot the child or the man, as long as you yourself lived.
All else being equal, that's a fair description.
Yet, for the rest of us, we'd have a battle between emotion and logic about, most likely, whether to shoot ourselves or the man.

If it came down to a decision between shooting the man or child only, most of us would shoot the man.

Why? Why would we do this, under your logic, what is the possible difference in terms of the decision we make?

I have no idea why you'd do that. That's my point.

I'm not trying to explain your behaviour. I'm asking you to explain your behaviour. Why do you choose the man (or yourself) over the child? And why is that reason compelling to you?
The question is not to ask which is the correct moral decision, the question is asked so that you can question whether there's any difference whatsoever between who we choose to shoot.
When you face the situation, assuming you desire to act morally, you need to ask yourself which is the correct moral decision, and then you should be able to explain which you chose and why.

I don't see why there would be any difference, all else being equal. All else probably isn't equal (the man and child might resist, for example), but we haven't established any other variables.
If there is a difference, that is a construct of morals - what would you call it?
If there's a difference, it could well be a construct of morals. But I don't see a difference.

You didn't corner anyone, Llewdor. That post is nothing but another rehash of everything you've been saying all along, which I specifically told you I would no longer respond to because I was tired of repeating myself.
You don't think the discovery that "people who are not relevantly similar to you are not subject to your moral concern" doesn't warrant comment? It's your position, after all.

I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise to you, being your position.

You don't think the discovery that "people who are not relevantly similar to you are not subject to your moral concern" doesn't warrant comment? It's your position, after all.

I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise to you, being your position.
Muravyets understands what Muravyets' position is. You do not.
Muravyets is very tired of trying to explain it to you. That is another point you don't get.

*snip*

See - you're simply lying - if you claim that you would have no hesitation, no thought as to what might be the right thing to do, no moral equivocation at all - well you're simply lying, it's easy to do on the Internet.

You're not really interested in understanding what morals are, you're simply interested in denying they exist no matter what that entails.

Muravyets understands what Muravyets' position is. You do not.
Muravyets is very tired of trying to explain it to you. That is another point you don't get.
My description of Muravyets's position is logically required to be true given Muravyets's own description of Muravyets's position.

Unless someone can point out an error in my logic, I'm going with that.

See - you're simply lying - if you claim that you would have no hesitation, no thought as to what might be the right thing to do, no moral equivocation at all - well you're simply lying, it's easy to do on the Internet.

You're not really interested in understanding what morals are, you're simply interested in denying they exist no matter what that entails.
It doesn't matter what I would do. Why would you do what you would do?

You're trying to get me to explain this myself, when I'm clearly asking you for an explanation. My point isn't that there is no motive for moral behaviour (though I'm not condeding that there is). My point is that most people (you included, apparently) don't know what that motive is, and as such your moral behaviour is necessarily irrational.

And, again, I specified that my decision was made "all else being equal". If all else isn't equal, let me know. Are there consequences for choosing one or the other? Is either one going to fight back? How far away are the chairs?

My description of Muravyets's position is logically required to be true given Muravyets's own description of Muravyets's position.

Unless someone can point out an error in my logic, I'm going with that.
I'll point out your error for you:

Your description of my position is the exact opposite of what my position actually is.

That fundamental, first-step error makes everything else you have said to me about it absolutely moot.

And no, I am not going to tell you what my position is because I have already told you what my position is several times over (I lost actual count a while ago). If you're still getting it so very wrong after all these repetitions, then telling you again will not do any good.

One last try:

Imagine yourself in a room, in which there are three chairs.

In one chair is a non-descript man, in another is an eight year old child and you're in the third.

You have a gun, with instructions to shoot either the man, the child or yourself - if you take no action, all of you will be killed in 3 minutes.

Who do you shoot?

I have three minutes in which to attempt to effect an escape for all three of us. Why would I be shooting anyone? Hell if they're actually coming into the room to kill us I'm saving my bullet(s) for our captors. Remember kids, there's always at least one more option than you're being offered.

I have three minutes in which to attempt to effect an escape for all three of us. Why would I be shooting anyone? Hell if they're actually coming into the room to kill us I'm saving my bullet(s) for our captors. Remember kids, there's always at least one more option than you're being offered.
This is the problem with all such fantasy hypotheticals. They are set up to try to force a decision or choice along the lines that Person A is trying to argue, but they depend on Person B buying into Person A's argument and its limitations. So any answer is going to be along the lines of "If I thought as you do, then I'd do this or that." But if Person B doesn't buy into Person A's argument, and doesn't feel like pretending he does, then he can just sidestep it as you did above (and as I've done to others numerous times), by rejecting all the offered options and saying what he'd do according to his own line of argument/way of thinking.

Fantasy hypotheticals are useful for getting people to lay out at least partially comparable illustrative examples of their various viewpoints, but they are pointless wastes of time if someone is trying to use them to prove the "sense" of any particular argument.

I'll point out your error for you:

Your description of my position is the exact opposite of what my position actually is.

That fundamental, first-step error makes everything else you have said to me about it absolutely moot.

And no, I am not going to tell you what my position is because I have already told you what my position is several times over (I lost actual count a while ago). If you're still getting it so very wrong after all these repetitions, then telling you again will not do any good.
So you're going to make imprecise, self-contradictory claims, and then insist you were misunderstood but refuse to clairify.

That's really helpful.

So you're going to make imprecise, self-contradictory claims, and then insist you were misunderstood but refuse to clairify.

That's really helpful.
You are not only repeating your arguments and demands, you are also repeating your complaints. You said nearly this exact same thing to me at least once already, maybe even twice before. I have clarified my statements to you already, several times, in response to those earlier complaints and during the course of our earlier argument. I will not do so again. If my position is not clear to you by now, then it is beyond my power to make you understand it.

Now, the rule I made for myself about responding to your repetitive arguments also applies to responding to your repetitive complaints. You have my answer. You will not get another one until you come up with a new question or comment. I mean an actually new one. Not just a delayed repeat that perhaps you hope will seem fresh just from the passage of time.

By the way, when I say that your representation of my position is the exact opposite of what my position really is, that should give you a very obvious clue as to what my position is. For instance, you said (wrongly) that I said that people who are not relevantly similar to oneself don't warrant the same kind of empathic consideration as those who are. I tell you that I really said the exact opposite of that. Go figure that out.

Oh, and PS: I'm not here to be "helpful" to you. At this point in your one-person circle-jerk, "Go back and read what I already told you" is all the help you're going to get from me.

So you're going to make imprecise, self-contradictory claims, and then insist you were misunderstood but refuse to clairify.

I doubt that many (any?) other people found Muravyets either imprecise or difficult to understand: I certainly didn't. The difficulty seems to be in the receiver, not the transmitter.

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

Lets put the question to a measurable test, so that we can have a verifiable outcome, shall we?

[X] = Moral Objection
[ ] = No Moral Objection

Moral Issue [Christian/Catholic] [Muslim] [Atheist]
Abortion [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Children out of wedlock [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Capital Punishment [ ] [X] [ ] [X]
Embryonic Stem Cell harvesting [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Homosexuality [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Same Sex Marriage [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Birth Control [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
Cloning [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Euthanasia [X] [X] [X] [ ]

Christian = 7/9
Catholic = 9/9
Muslim = 7/9
Atheist = 1/9

The judgment is indubitable; you have to be religious to score high in morals :D

Lets put the question to a measurable test, so that we can have a verifiable outcome, shall we?

[X] = Moral Objection
[ ] = No Moral Objection

Moral Issue [Christian/Catholic] [Muslim] [Atheist]
Abortion [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Children out of wedlock [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Capital Punishment [ ] [X] [ ] [X]
Embryonic Stem Cell harvesting [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Homosexuality [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Same Sex Marriage [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Birth Control [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
Cloning [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Euthanasia [X] [X] [X] [ ]

Christian = 7/9
Catholic = 9/9
Muslim = 7/9
Atheist = 1/9

The judgment is indubitable; you have to be religious to score high in morals :D
That chart shows no such thing.

All it shows is that one needs religion to give one a particular list of things to object to. In other words, religion is a very good tool for poking one's nose into other people's business.

It says absolutely nothing whatsoever about whether non-religious people would have moral objections regarding issues that are not on that list. It also says absolutely nothing at all about whether non-religious people (or followers of religions not mentioned on that list, for that matter) would have moral objections to the idea of having moral objections about the listed issues. And it further says absolutely nothing at all about whether either religious people or non-religious people actually behave in a moral manner themselves.

No.

/thread

Next please :D

That chart shows no such thing.

All it shows is that one needs religion to give one a particular list of things to object to. In other words, religion is a very good tool for poking one's nose into other people's business.

It says absolutely nothing whatsoever about whether non-religious people would have moral objections regarding issues that are not on that list. It also says absolutely nothing at all about whether non-religious people (or followers of religions not mentioned on that list, for that matter) would have moral objections to the idea of having moral objections about the listed issues. And it further says absolutely nothing at all about whether either religious people or non-religious people actually behave in a moral manner themselves.


I think there are two ways to read your 'objection' to the concise manner in which I found an answer to the OP's question.

1. The atheist doesn't like the moral questions and answers (the issue) I addressed and they don't want those morality questions to end the discussion, thus, by that list, they would choose to not want to be moral, they choose to be immoral instead of moral (by that standard). OR, 2. The Atheist doesn't even understand the list itself, they don't understand how that list is a list of moral questions, they don't understand what is and what is not a social moral issue/question and/or they object to the list itself.

If 2, then I can't help them. IF 1., then feel free to add to the list all the options and questions and answers for the groups as you want and we will tally the results after that, eh? Here's the list again, feel free to add groups, questions and collective answers.

[X] = Moral Objection
[ ] = No Moral Objection

Moral Issue [Christian/Catholic] [Muslim] [Atheist]
Abortion [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Children out of wedlock [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Capital Punishment [ ] [X] [ ] [X]
Embryonic Stem Cell harvesting [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Homosexuality [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Same Sex Marriage [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Birth Control [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
Cloning [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Euthanasia [X] [X] [X] [ ]

Just as being religious does not make you immune to immorality, it should conversely stand that being nonreligious does not prevent you from being moral.

I think there are only two ways to read your 'objection' to the concise manner in which I found an answer to the OP's question.
3. The people who put X's are the ones being IMMORAL, since they are demonstrating that they have no clue what morality is even about; the people who have "no objections" to those bizarre issues you chose are the ones who actually have a moral sense; thus, your table shows that religious people are worse than non-religious people.

<logic-free snip>
So, because atheists often don't agree with religious people on certain moral questions, that makes them immoral?

You need to seriously work on your basic logic skills, my friend.

So, because atheists often don't agree with religious people on certain moral questions, that makes them immoral?
Yes, exactly right. That was the conclusion of the graph measurement analysis.

You need to seriously work on your basic logic skills, my friend.

Logically, a position on the OP’s question requires that we identify what 'moral' is, and what our position to that definition is. It seems to me that you are lacking logical conclusion to your rebuttal of my position if you think you've refuted my position, you haven't defined morality or the positions to your definition. I have, in a measurable and repeatable way nonetheless, perhaps you can do the same to refute my claims, or perhaps not?

It seems to me that you are lacking logical conclusion to your rebuttal of my position if you think you've refuted my position, you haven't defined morality or the positions to your definition.
I don't need to, as I'm not putting forward an answer to the OP's question (though I'll outline one below). One needn't put forward a position to point out the innacuracies in another's.

All I'm saying is your position begs the question. You define moral as 'what religious people think', then proceed to ask whether atheists share such views.

Obviously, they won't match up to such standards.

I'd suggest we either:
identify whether morality can exist independent of a god or gods, as has been demonstrated in philosophy for well over 2000 years, along with countless times in this thread; or
identify what we agree to be 'moral behaviour', without begging the question, and see whether or not atheists match up to this standard, as has (rather obviously) been demonstrated in this thread and in r/l innumerable times.

I'd also recommend that, rather than choosing an arbitrary number of issues who's answers will obviously be affected by one's theological bent, you attempt to demonstrate how it is possible for atheists to be unable to act in a moral fashion, and/or hold a coherent moral system.

If you acheive this, I'm sure the Department of Philosophy at Harvard will be glad to employ you.

Logically, a position on the OP’s question requires that we identify what 'moral' is, and what our position to that definition is.
Vaguely, I would say that morality is concerned with treating others as if they were people, which they are, even if they are different from yourself. Jesus would have thought so, but Christians generally On certain issues (gay rights, most notably), you define the anti-Christ position as "moral"; but your whole listing of issues seems to display no concept of what "morality" consists of at all.

Vaguely, I would say that morality is concerned with treating others as if they were people, which they are, even if they are different from yourself. Jesus would have thought so, but Christians generally On certain issues (gay rights, most notably), you define the anti-Christ position as "moral"; but your whole listing of issues seems to display no concept of what "morality" consists of at all.

I agree that it is Morality which dictates to us how we should treat others and guides our behavior when we interact with others. However, what you are talking about seems to be how people treat the people that do not share the same morality as themselves OR how society should treat those that purposefully break those moral codes.

Morality should present a systematic guide to our own behavior in regards to standards of right or wrong behavior. Those that break that code of conduct are shunned, punished, ignored, belittled or cast out entirely if the problem is too severe to be reconcilable with the moral codes of the community.

If morality is a doctrine or system of moral conduct: a particular set of moral principles or rules for 'right' conduct AND conformity to ideals of right human conduct, then "Treating other people like 'human beings,'" is NOT a sufficient definition for telling us how to come to an agreement on choosing our own moral behavior.

I can treat an abuser, an adulterer, a drunken and dirty sot of a man like a 'human being' even as I purposely respond to his immorality and wrongs by either locking him in prison as a criminal (society's reaction to his immorality) or by shunning him as a neighbor or not share his company because I disapprove of his immoral behavior (as an individual who reacts to another person that doesn't uphold 'moral' behavior). Morality not only tells us how to react to others, it tells others how they should react to us.

p.s., the list of moral issues in that graph are all about how people should treat others, ask any catholic theologian ;)

Okay I just read through all the postings so that I could put in my two cents with a somewhat clear idea of what's already been said.
So...

My opinion is that religion is not required to have an innate sense of right and wrong.

My opinion is also that all humans start out with a basic sense of right and wrong which they can then choose whether to do right or wrong; thier decision being affected by benifits and difficulties of each choice. Wrong or immoral actions are often enjoyable and self-benificial whereas many right/moral actions are not enjoyable and costly.

My opinion is that religion gives cause to sacrifice the benifits of wrong/immoral actions and suffer the difficulties of right/moral choices, causing those who correctly follow the teaching to be more moral than they would be without this influence.

It is not my opinion that all religions are equal in this case, or that all religious people follow what is taught in their religion.

My opinion is based on an ideal situation where those who claim to believe something follow through with their actions.

------------------------------------------------------

Ps. Please excuse the name of my country if it's offensive, I have a very dear friend who's favorite joke-word is poopnugget and it's so named in honor of her.

Now to prepare the chemistry lab that I was suposed to be doing while reading this, I'll check tomorrow if anyone responds to me specifically.

Lets put the question to a measurable test, so that we can have a verifiable outcome, shall we?

[X] = Moral Objection
[ ] = No Moral Objection

Moral Issue [Christian/Catholic] [Muslim] [Atheist]
Abortion [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Children out of wedlock [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Capital Punishment [ ] [X] [ ] [X]
Embryonic Stem Cell harvesting [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Homosexuality [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Same Sex Marriage [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Birth Control [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
Cloning [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Euthanasia [X] [X] [X] [ ]

Christian = 7/9
Catholic = 9/9
Muslim = 7/9
Atheist = 1/9

The judgment is indubitable; you have to be religious to score high in morals :D

That depends what you mean by "moral."
Also, I question the accuracy of the chart. "Christian" is a fairly disparate group, as is atheist. I don't know enough about Islam to determine whether that column is correct, but I'm guessing Muslims are more complicated than you're giving them credit for.

I doubt that many (any?) other people found Muravyets either imprecise or difficult to understand: I certainly didn't. The difficulty seems to be in the receiver, not the transmitter.
For whatever it's worth, I found Muravyets easy to understand.

That chart shows no such thing.

All it shows is that one needs religion to give one a particular list of things to object to. In other words, religion is a very good tool for poking one's nose into other people's business.

I disagree. I think it shows that people who want to oppose, say, women's rights will find that they have a very easy time of it if they invoke religion as a shield. I don't think religion provides people with a list of things to oppose, I think they make up their minds to oppose something and choose a religion that will help them cover their ass.


It says absolutely nothing whatsoever about whether non-religious people would have moral objections regarding issues that are not on that list. It also says absolutely nothing at all about whether non-religious people (or followers of religions not mentioned on that list, for that matter) would have moral objections to the idea of having moral objections about the listed issues. And it further says absolutely nothing at all about whether either religious people or non-religious people actually behave in a moral manner themselves.
Yeah, I think it's kind of funny that opposing gay rights, women's rights, and good health care are what INCREASE one's "moral score."

Of course, we could add items to that list which would bump up the atheists score. For instance, add wife beating to the list. Or child abuse.

I think there are two ways to read your 'objection' to the concise manner in which I found an answer to the OP's question.

1. The atheist doesn't like the moral questions and answers (the issue) I addressed and they don't want those morality questions to end the discussion, thus, by that list, they would choose to not want to be moral, they choose to be immoral instead of moral (by that standard). OR, 2. The Atheist doesn't even understand the list itself, they don't understand how that list is a list of moral questions, they don't understand what is and what is not a social moral issue/question and/or they object to the list itself.

If 2, then I can't help them. IF 1., then feel free to add to the list all the options and questions and answers for the groups as you want and we will tally the results after that, eh? Here's the list again, feel free to add groups, questions and collective answers.

[X] = Moral Objection
[ ] = No Moral Objection

Moral Issue [Christian/Catholic] [Muslim] [Atheist]
Abortion [X] [X] [X] [X]
Children out of wedlock [X] [X] [X] [X]
Capital Punishment [X] [X] [X] [X]
Embryonic Stem Cell harvesting [X] [X] [X] [X]
Homosexuality [X] [X] [X] [X]
Same Sex Marriage [X] [X] [X] [X]
Birth Control [X] [X] [X] [X]
Cloning [X] [X] [X] [X]
Euthanasia [X] [X] [X] [X]

Fixed. There are undoubtedly some people from each of those groups that has moral objections to the issues on that list. You see, the only people that have an electronic hivemind are Anonymous. All Christians do not think alike. Nor all Catholics, nor all Muslims, nor all Atheists.

Now, if you'd like to do some kind of study on each of these groups to try and establish what the majority has a moral objection to, then be my guest. But you won't achieve anything. Being 'more' moral != Morally objecting to more things

To Balderdash71964:

What utter... Balderdash. I'm sorry, but your posts in this thread are complete nonsense so far.

You want to be concise about your response to the OP? Fine, let's express it concisely: Basically, all you are saying here is that you define "morality" as checking off the right box on a standardized list of fundamentalist religious/political talking points. You are saying that that short list sums up the whole of what "morality" is. And you are saying that people who YOU ASSUME would not check off those exact same boxes are "immoral."

And we can dismiss your cant just as concisely: You are making an assertion of fact about what people would do with that list of yours, yet you show absolutely no factual evidence (like links to statistics) to back up your assertion. Therefore, there is no reason to believe what you say. You further offer no philosophical or logical argument to explain or back up your assumption that having objections to those issues is the moral thing to do. Therefore, there is no reason to think you actually have a morality argument to make. Your demarcation of moral/immoral falls along the line of like/not like you and the groups you approve of personally, ergo your argument is based on bigoted assumptions. What are we left with? Nothing at all, except this:

Balderdash71964 has used a bigot's definition of "moral" in order to defame the character of athiests without actually addressing the question of "morality" and whether religion is its source at all.

[X] = Evidence of intolerance and bigotry


Moral Issue [Christian/Catholic] [Muslim] [Atheist]
Abortion [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Children out of wedlock [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Capital Punishment [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Embryonic Stem Cell harvesting [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Homosexuality [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Same Sex Marriage [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Birth Control [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Cloning [X] [X] [X] [ ]
Euthanasia [X] [X] [X] [ ]

My version. Has as much validity as the original.

... Basically, all you are saying here is that you define "morality" as checking off the right box on a standardized list of fundamentalist religious/political talking points.
Talking points? No, they are definitely issues and those that answer them call them moral issues. Whether you do or not is irrelevant, clearly they are social issues that are fought about in the public forum and the public governments worldwide.

... You are saying that that short list sums up the whole of what "morality" is.
No I'm not and I never did and I made it abundantly clear that I was not stating that it sums up the whole of what morality is... you should try honesty with your posts sometime, it helps you make a point better. I've invited you (and others) to add to the list as you see fit, clearly I never even implied that the list was finished or complete...

...And you are saying that people who YOU ASSUME would not check off those exact same boxes are "immoral."
As groups and not individuals, I checked off the box's for social consensus of those groups, I didn't suppose that any individuals were being measured.

...And we can dismiss your cant just as concisely: You are making an assertion of fact about what people would do with that list of yours, yet you show absolutely no factual evidence (like links to statistics) to back up your assertion.
You want me to 'prove' that catholics (for example) believe all those issues to be moral issues or that catholics hold the answers I marked for them? But I'm sorry, I thought the people reading this thread lived on the planet earth and these sorts of stands on issues were self evident.

...Therefore, there is no reason to believe what you say. You further offer no philosophical or logical argument to explain or back up your assumption that having objections to those issues is the moral thing to do. Therefore, there is no reason to think you actually have a morality argument to make. Your demarcation of moral/immoral falls along the line of like/not like you and the groups you approve of personally, ergo your argument is based on bigoted assumptions. What are we left with? Nothing at all, except this:

Balderdash71964 has used a bigot's definition of "moral" in order to defame the character of atheists without actually addressing the question of "morality" and whether religion is its source at all.

It appears that you are in group 2. huh?
2. The Atheist doesn't even understand the list itself, they don't understand how that list is a list of moral questions at all, they don't understand what is and what is not a social moral issue/question and/or they object to the list itself.
And as such, I already admitted that I can't prove a case to someone with such an alien outlook. If two sides can't even agree on what is and what is not a moral issue, then how can they debate what is and what is not moral behavior? They cannot.

But if you are just going to define "moral" by "whatever religious people call moral", then you are only answering the tautologous question, "Do you have to be religious to be religious?"

Talking points? No, they are definitely issues and those that answer them call them moral issues. Whether you do or not is irrelevant, clearly they are social issues that are fought about in the public forum and the public governments worldwide.
That doesn't prove that any particular response to them is inherently moral or immoral. The fact that there is widespread debate about them only goes to show that there are differences of opinon about just what the moral response to them is. Therefore, your assertion that registering an objection to those issues is the moral response to them fails, because that has yet to be decided.

No I'm not and I never did and I made it abundantly clear that I was not stating that it sums up the whole of what morality is... you should try honesty with your posts sometime, it helps you make a point better. I've invited you (and others) to add to the list as you see fit, clearly I never even implied that the list was finished or complete...
You should try a little honesty yourself. You claimed to be responding to the OP question. The OP question is "Do you have to be religious to be moral?" Your answer was to claim measurable proof in the form of your little charty thing, and you further claimed that this proved that religious people are more moral than non-religious people. You never said anything at all about your data being incomplete, yet you presumed to draw a conclusion based on it. Who is the one trying to mislead others here? I think it is you.


As groups and not individuals, I checked off the box's for social consensus of those groups, I didn't suppose that any individuals were being measured.


You want me to 'prove' that catholics (for example) believe all those issues to be moral issues or that catholics hold the answers I marked for them? But I'm sorry, I thought the people reading this thread lived on the planet earth and these sorts of stands on issues were self evident.
What is self-evident on planet Earth is that you are just jerking people around.

If your chart purports to be a representation of the general positions of the groups listed on it, and if it is not just fiction, then it must have been made from compiled data. Either it must be referencing published position statements from the religion's hierarchies, or it must be referencing statistical data on the opinions of members of the religions. Where is that data? Where is a link to the source of the chart, which might contain information about how it was made? Failure to provide that renders your pretty little chart utterly meaningless. If you got it off a site, post a link to the site so we can judge its validity for ourselves.


It appears that you are in group 2. huh?
2. The Atheist doesn't even understand the list itself, they don't understand how that list is a list of moral questions at all, they don't understand what is and what is not a social moral issue/question and/or they object to the list itself.
And as such, I already admitted that I can't prove a case to someone with such an alien outlook. If two sides can't even agree on what is and what is not a moral issue, then how can they debate what is and what is not moral behavior? They cannot.
Well, you would be the expert on being closed minded, apparently. You and I have argued often enough that you should know by now that I am not an atheist. The fact that, having forgotten that, you chose to simply assume that I am rather than ask me what my position re religion is, just goes to support my assertion that you are arguing from the position of a bigot who arbitrarily assigns pejorative and dismissive labels to people based on extremely superficial glimpses.

I stand by my original reading of your post: That it was not intended to debate the OP question at all, but merely to laud yourself as moral and put down other people as immoral. I also maintain that it added nothing to the debate because it has no substance. If you really want to open up a line of debate, then post the source of your chart, so that its factual claims can be examined and argued.

.... If you really want to open up a line of debate, then post the source of your chart, so that its factual claims can be examined and argued.

I am the source of the chart.

As to really opening up a line of debate, I already invited anyone to add to the chart and we can measure it's growth in a meaningful way. NO one has yet attempted to seriously add social moral issues to the list or mark positions to those positions.

However, you've already made up your mind and want to pretend that the chart is somehow erroneous because I failed to prove that Catholicism says it has a moral objection to all of those issues, but it's inherently obvious to anyone with any observational skills whatsoever that the Catholic church actively works to stop or restrain those that perform those acts they call 'immoral' and I don't have to prove that anymore than I would have to prove that soil is dirt.

(as yes, I remember that you are an animalist, I was paraphrasing my earlier statement about atheist objections to the list, I was quoting it, not calling you an atheist.)

Wow, Baldy, are you serious?

I thought you were doing a clever piece of satire, there. About how silly it was to make genralised statements concerning religion and morality, when morality is such a subjective notion.

That would have been cool.

Wow, Baldy, are you serious?

I thought you were doing a clever piece of satire, there. About how silly it was to make genralised statements concerning religion and morality, when morality is such a subjective notion.

That would have been cool.

;) Irony in proving that we can't even agree on what morality is so the conversation is doomed from the start.

I am the source of the chart.

<snip>
Then I dismiss it out of hand as adding nothing to the conversation. But thanks for playing.

(as yes, I remember that you are an animalist, I was paraphrasing my earlier statement about atheist objections to the list, I was quoting it, not calling you an atheist.)
Animist. I am not aware of any such thing as an "animalist."

And I see, so you are just putting me into the same group of people who don't know that your list of issues is a list of moral issues. And you were just quoting that remark, not prefacing it by saying that you were putting me into that "second group" (which you followed with the athiest description (which I guess you just made up, like you just made up your little chart?)). Uh-huh. But how does that answer my counter-arguments that (A) not objecting to those issues in not necessarily immoral, and (B) that not having an opinion about those issues does not mean that a person does not have opinions on other moral issues, and (C) that a list that is fictitious, subjective and incomplete all at the same time is not a good support for your argument?

;) Irony in proving that we can't even agree on what morality is so the conversation is doomed from the start.
I disagree. Even by your own standards of morality, you will find non-religious people who hold the same views and fit in with your moral code -- anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-etc. Clearly, they do not get their moral code from being religious, however, so obviously one does not need religion to be moral -- even if we stop at the level of equating "being moral" with "following a moral code."

But if you are just going to define "moral" by "whatever religious people call moral", then you are only answering the tautologous question, "Do you have to be religious to be religious?"

But of course. How else could he be sure that he would be right?

Animist. I am not aware of any such thing as an "animalist."

an·i·mal·ism (n-m-lzm)
n.
1. Enjoyment of vigorous health and physical drives.
2. Indifference to all but the physical appetites.
3. The doctrine that humans are merely animals with no spiritual nature.
ani·mal·ist n.


There you go! :D

Do you have to be religious to be moral?

Of course not.

...But how does that answer my counter-arguments that (A) not objecting to those issues in not necessarily immoral, and (B) that not having an opinion about those issues does not mean that a person does not have opinions on other moral issues, and (C) that a list that is fictitious, subjective and incomplete all at the same time is not a good support for your argument?

I stated your counter argument was one of the two options already, I addressed it by saying that the group that didn't like the list or what was on the list or the fact that the list even existed, was unable to recognize the rationale of those that agree with the list... I already stated that 'morality' was (admittedly I said it in a post not directed at you though so perhaps you missed it) as follows:

Morality should present a systematic guide to our own behavior in regards to standards of right or wrong behavior. Those that break that code of conduct are shunned, punished, ignored, belittled or cast out entirely if the problem is too severe to be reconcilable with the moral codes of the community.

If morality is a doctrine or system of moral conduct: a particular set of moral principles or rules for 'right' conduct AND conformity to ideals of right human conduct, then "Treating other people like 'human beings,'" is NOT a sufficient definition for telling us how to come to an agreement on choosing our own moral behavior.

And I pointed out that your argument fell into the group 2., argument, one that can't be refuted or confirmed by the other side. The Catholics certainly think those issues are moral issues and a persons position on those issues displays the person's moral understanding, and I said before and I'll say it again, 2. The Atheist doesn't even understand the list itself, they don't understand how that list is a list of moral questions at all, they don't understand what is and what is not a social moral issue/question and/or they object to the list itself.

It is clear that YOU don't agree with the list as a barometer of morality. Thus, my point is already made, no need to address your point again.

The Atheist doesn’t even want to be moral if being moral is behaving in the way the catholic morality says they should. And in order to prove that I made the list, and you proved my point by arguing that the list shouldn’t even exist as a measuring stick by ‘your’ morality code (which is clearly different that of the religious morality code).

Clearly then, the answer to the OP's question is yes, because a high score in any morality test that is measurable will be predetermined by who is giving the test and from which credentials they use to determine a correct or incorrect answer, from the religious point of view atheism fails to choose moral behaviors.

2. The Atheist doesn't even understand the list itself, they don't understand how that list is a list of moral questions at all, they don't understand what is and what is not a social moral issue/question and/or they object to the list itself.
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/chapter1.html

There we go. A moral treatment of social questions from a non-religious point of view. Sure, it comes to the conclusion that intervention would be immoral rather than the right thing to do, but not only can you not defeat that conclusion without referring to your own faith (which is just not a valid argument), but the conclusion doesn't matter - what matters is that this is being treated as a moral question.

You're still answering a tautology. If you hold that moral behaviour is following the rules of a religion, then of course not following that religion is not being moral.

But you ignore that there are vast deliberations on non-religious moral codes, including on social issues.

I disagree. Even by your own standards of morality, you will find non-religious people who hold the same views and fit in with your moral code -- anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-etc. Clearly, they do not get their moral code from being religious, however, so obviously one does not need religion to be moral -- even if we stop at the level of equating "being moral" with "following a moral code."

Exceptions to the rule do not disprove the rule.

an·i·mal·ism (n-m-lzm)
n.
1. Enjoyment of vigorous health and physical drives.
2. Indifference to all but the physical appetites.
3. The doctrine that humans are merely animals with no spiritual nature.
ani·mal·ist n.


There you go! :D

Oh, I see. Well, now I know. Thanks. Too bad for Balderdash that it is kind of the exact opposite of what an animist is.

For the record, Merriam-Webster:
animist
One entry found.

animism

Main Entry:
an·i·mism
Pronunciation: \?a-n?-?mi-z?m\
Function: noun
Etymology: German Animismus, from Latin anima soul
Date: 1832
1 : a doctrine that the vital principle of organic development is immaterial spirit
2 : attribution of conscious life to objects in and phenomena of nature or to inanimate objects
3 : belief in the existence of spirits separable from bodies
— an·i·mist \-mist\ noun
— an·i·mis·tic \?a-n?-?mis-tik\ adjective

Clearly then, the answer to the OP's question is yes, because a high score in any morality test that is measurable will be predetermined by who is giving the test and from which credentials they iuse to determine a correct or incorrect answer, from the religious point of view atheism fails to choose moral behaviors.

From which religious point of view? And further, what if the test were created by an atheist? In fact, let's just suppose that I did create such a test, and that when it was put to NSG it was found that, on average, atheists got the 'right answer'(that is, the same one I would have picked) more often than theists. Would that then prove that one has to be atheist in order to be moral? Even as I write it it sounds totally ridiculous, and the bias is blindingly obvious, but you surely must think that exactly that would be proven, since you just claimed that exactly that(with atheist and religious swapped around) is true.

Exceptions to the rule do not disprove the rule.

When the rule is alleged to be absolute then they absolutely do. For example, if you stated than only cats have four legs, then an exception to that rule(a dog with four legs, for example) would disprove it.

Exceptions to the rule do not disprove the rule.
The fact that you would dismiss the enormous numbers of people who do not follow your listed religions yet still engage in behavior that would qualify as moral under those religion's rules as "exceptions to the rule", is evidence that I was right about your argument from the beginning -- You are only here to paint yourself and those like you as "moral" and to paint all others as "immoral." In other words, you only came here to insult non-religious people with nonsense charts that you claim are factual and bull about how atheists don't know what morality is.

My version. Has as much validity as the original.

/thread

Fixed. There are undoubtedly some people from each of those groups that has moral objections to the issues on that list. You see, the only people that have an electronic hivemind are Anonymous. All Christians do not think alike. Nor all Catholics, nor all Muslims, nor all Atheists.

Communion actually contains tiny transistors that end up in the brain. When Benedict gives the word, the world's one billion Catholics will initiate Armageddon.

I stated your counter argument was one of the two options already, I addressed it by saying that the group that didn't like the list or what was on the list or the fact that the list even existed, was unable to recognize the rationale of those that agree with the list... I already stated that 'morality' was (admittedly I said it in a post not directed at you though so perhaps you missed it) as follows:

Morality should present a systematic guide to our own behavior in regards to standards of right or wrong behavior. Those that break that code of conduct are shunned, punished, ignored, belittled or cast out entirely if the problem is too severe to be reconcilable with the moral codes of the community.

If morality is a doctrine or system of moral conduct: a particular set of moral principles or rules for 'right' conduct AND conformity to ideals of right human conduct, then "Treating other people like 'human beings,'" is NOT a sufficient definition for telling us how to come to an agreement on choosing our own moral behavior.
Again, I call bullshit. Who made you the arbiter of what constitutes a "sufficient definition"? Do you honestly expect anyone to accept an argument that basically boils down to "I acknowledge that non-religious people have systematic guides to their own behavior, but I unilaterally declare them insufficient, so they don't count, and I can get away with saying that religious people are moral and non-religious people aren't"?

And I pointed out that your argument fell into the group 2., argument, one that can't be refuted or confirmed by the other side.
Excuse me, it most certainly was refuted, in this very thread.

And the fact that you choose to put me on the same list as the other people you like to insult by claiming that they don't understand morality does not prove anything about my argument.

The Catholics certainly think those issues are moral issues and a persons position on those issues displays the person's moral understanding, and I said before and I'll say it again, 2. The Atheist doesn't even understand the list itself, they don't understand how that list is a list of moral questions at all, they don't understand what is and what is not a social moral issue/question and/or they object to the list itself.
Repeating it doesn't make true. You have failed to show anything that supports your assertion that atheists do not understand your little list (which I'd like to remind other readers, you just made up), or that the issues are moral issues, or what is/is not a social moral issue/question. As to objecting to your list, you have failed to show how objecting to the list is an indicator of a lack of morals in a person's character.

It is clear that YOU don't agree with the list as a barometer of morality. Thus, my point is already made, no need to address your point again.
If that means you are going to stop repeating your insults against me and atheists, good.

The Atheist doesn’t even want to be moral if being moral is behaving in the way the catholic morality says they should. And in order to prove that I made the list, and you proved my point by arguing that the list shouldn’t even exist as a measuring stick by ‘your’ morality code (which is clearly different that of the religious morality code).
More bull.

1) When did I compare the list to MY moral code and reject it on that basis?

2) What makes you think my moral code is not religious, considering that I am not an atheist? (Another of your false assumptions is showing.)

3) The actual reasons I rejected your list are (a) that you just made it up and (b) that it doesn't say what you wanted it to. You claimed it as a factual basis for your assertion that religious people are moral and non-religious people aren't, yet there are no verifiable facts in it. You tried to use it to show a lack of moral stances among atheists, even though you later admitted your list was not exhaustive, so there is no way it can show that atheists don't have morals, just because they don't share your views on those specific issues. Therefore, your list is twice useless for what you tried to use it for.

Clearly then, the answer to the OP's question is yes, because a high score in any morality test that is measurable will be predetermined by who is giving the test and from which credentials they use to determine a correct or incorrect answer, from the religious point of view atheism fails to choose moral behaviors.
So all you are really saying is that, according to YOU, atheists are not moral. And you will say that in total disregard of the observably moral nature of the behavior of atheists (dismissing all evidence of such behavior as "exceptions" to some rule that is not codified anywhere). And you will disregard that behavior only because its source is not YOUR moral code, which you have a vested interest in labeling as "moral", exclusively. So to you, it is valid to say that other people have no morals because they are not members of your religious group, and your religious group has the monopoly on morality because you like it and you say so.

In other words, you are making a bigoted argument, just as I said from the beginning.

From which religious point of view? And further, what if the test were created by an atheist? In fact, let's just suppose that I did create such a test, and that when it was put to NSG it was found that, on average, atheists got the 'right answer'(that is, the same one I would have picked) more often than theists. Would that then prove that one has to be atheist in order to be moral? Even as I write it it sounds totally ridiculous, and the bias is blindingly obvious, but you surely must think that exactly that would be proven, since you just claimed that exactly that(with atheist and religious swapped around) is true.

I think that Balderdash is trying -- unsuccessfully -- to argue that because people are bigoted about morality there is no way for anyone to think that someone who does not share their views could be moral. So, in answer to the OP, a religious person would have to answer that, yes, one does need religion to be moral. If so, then the flip would be true as well, and an atheist would have to answer that one has to be an atheist to be moral.

But that argument fails because it assumes that all people are bigots -- meaning that they value only their own views/group/people/class/etc. That assumption is wrong.

We can ascertain by simply watching people that not all people are bigots. Non-bigots are perfectly capable of looking at people who are different from themselves and still be able to tell that they are behaving in a moral manner, even though they may follow a different moral code. Therefore, it is easily possible for a religious person to observe the behavior and beliefs of an atheist and conclude that the atheist does indeed have morals.

Communion actually contains tiny transistors that end up in the brain. When Benedict gives the word, the world's one billion Catholics will initiate Armageddon.
By flushing all the toilets at once? ;)

...Morality should present a systematic guide to our own behavior in regards to standards of right or wrong behavior....
It is clear that YOU don't agree with the list as a barometer of morality.
It is quite obvious that YOU don't, either: I am sure that the vast majority of the people you know are not deciding today whether to have an abortion, to execute a prisoner, to research on embryonic cells, or to have sex with someone of the same gender; thus this isolated list of your pet issues is hardly a "systematic guide to behavior" and does not constitute "morality" even by your own definition.

Anyone who gets their 'morality' from abstract meta psychical and religious concepts, rather than from actual reality, is a dangerous individual indeed.

You get your morality from abstract concepts too, and no amount of you calling them "reality" will disguise that you are as dogmatic as any religious person claiming likewise that their concepts are the "reality". You are worse than the religious since you come to the conclusion that murder is a good thing more often than most of the religious people do.

You get your morality from abstract concepts too, and no amount of you calling them "reality" will disguise that you are as dogmatic as any religious person claiming likewise that their concepts are the "reality". You are worse than the religious since you come to the conclusion that murder is a good thing more often than most of the religious people do.

The abstract concept of "Society funcitions best for all if everyone treats each other with the same respect and concern they themselves would like to be treated"?

If you call that abstract, I can't help but wonder about your reality...

??? Of couse that's abstract.
But in the case of Andaras, mutuality of respect and concern is far from his morality. He searches out enemies to caricature and dehumanize, and advocates killing them.

Does he? I hadn't noticed that yet.

And how is that an abstract? It's an age-old obeservationof reality, human nature and social dynamics.

The abstract concept of "Society funcitions best for all if everyone treats each other with the same respect and concern they themselves would like to be treated"?

If you call that abstract, I can't help but wonder about your reality...

??? Of couse that's abstract.
But in the case of Andaras, mutuality of respect and concern is far from his morality. He searches out enemies to caricature and dehumanize, and advocates killing them.

I cannot beleive this thread is still alive.

You haven't talked to him much, then.

"observation", "reality", "nature", "dynamics" are all examples of "abstract" nouns (as opposed to "teacup", "brick", "puppy", or "glove", which are concrete nouns). Large-scale generalizations are inherently abstract. You appear to have some strange definition of "abstract" in mind, but I cannot guess what you think the word means.

So the fact that moral behaviour can actually be linked to a certain area of the brain doesn't make it a concrete fact, then?

Does he? I hadn't noticed that yet.
You haven't talked to him much, then.
And how is that an abstract? It's an age-old obeservationof reality, human nature and social dynamics.
"observation", "reality", "nature", "dynamics" are all examples of "abstract" nouns (as opposed to "teacup", "brick", "puppy", or "glove", which are concrete nouns). Large-scale generalizations are inherently abstract. You appear to have some strange definition of "abstract" in mind, but I cannot guess what you think the word means.

I cannot beleive this thread is still alive.

Its still going ... Somehow.

You get your morality from abstract concepts too, and no amount of you calling them "reality" will disguise that you are as dogmatic as any religious person claiming likewise that their concepts are the "reality". You are worse than the religious since you come to the conclusion that murder is a good thing more often than most of the religious people do.

gets ready to dive in

Me and my roommate share milk because its easier than both of us buying seperate gallons of milk every week. I am an atheist and my roommate is catholic, but how is that act of sharing abstract?

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).

perhaps they could have used the thought: how would I like it if someone did this to me? Or to my wife. Or to my child.

That they would need religion to come to this line of thinking is, pardon my French, Bullshit.

So the fact that moral behaviour can actually be linked to a certain area of the brain doesn't make it a concrete fact, then?
Processing abstract concepts is also in a certain area of the brain. Therefore, all abstractions are concrete?

Processing abstract concepts is also in a certain area of the brain. Therefore, all abstractions are concrete?

No, but the processing is.

??? Of couse that's abstract.
But in the case of Andaras, mutuality of respect and concern is far from his morality. He searches out enemies to caricature and dehumanize, and advocates killing them.

No, I simply say that society is ultimately divided by material barriers of property and wealth (class), and that those divisions bring antagonism and contradiction between the classes. I simply think that the answers to the problems of our 'reality' come from reality itself, not from abstract ideological or spiritualist sources. I support class struggle because it's combating the only real injustice in the world, the only one that exists in reality; class oppression.

No, I simply say that society is ultimately divided by material barriers of property and wealth (class), and that those divisions bring antagonism and contradiction between the classes. I simply think that the answers to the problems of our 'reality' come from reality itself, not from abstract ideological or spiritualist sources. I support class struggle because it's combating the only real injustice in the world, the only one that exists in reality; class oppression.

What about Gender struggles?
In many other countries women still don't have equal rights to men.
What about climate change, is that not a struggle too?
What about nuclear weapons, struggle for who can have them.
Or Struggle for reducing white collar crime?

By the way, when I say that your representation of my position is the exact opposite of what my position really is, that should give you a very obvious clue as to what my position is.[/quoet]
My conception of your position was based on what you said. As such, when you now tell me that your position is the opposite of what I say it is, either you're directly contradicting yourself or I've made some sort of logical error. And I can't find the error.
[quote] For instance, you said (wrongly) that I said that people who are not relevantly similar to oneself don't warrant the same kind of empathic consideration as those who are. I tell you that I really said the exact opposite of that. Go figure that out.[/quoet]
I did. Here's what you said:
[QUOTE=Muravyets;13402778]The ability to recognize others as similar to ourselves is the core of empathy. If a person does not feel that recognition, then they will not feel empathy
As such, people who are not relevantly similar don't create empathy in you. Since empathy is the root of moral thought, your morality cannot deal with those who do not inspire empathy in you, as, by your own admission, the relevantly dissimilar do not.

I'm not twisting your words. I'm just reading them.
Oh, and PS: I'm not here to be "helpful" to you.
But I'm here to be helpful for you. You hold an internally inconsistent position, and you don't seem to be aware of it. I'm just pointing it out.

No, I simply say that society is ultimately divided by material barriers of property and wealth (class), and that those divisions bring antagonism and contradiction between the classes. I simply think that the answers to the problems of our 'reality' come from reality itself, not from abstract ideological or spiritualist sources. I support class struggle because it's combating the only real injustice in the world, the only one that exists in reality; class oppression.
Your conception of "class oppression" IS an "abstract ideological source" for your frequent willingness to justify mass murders.
It is every bit as "abstract" and "ideological" as any religious style of thought; you think it is more "realistic", but not everyone agrees with you; to an outsider you often appear quite deluded. I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

Llewdor: "My conception of your position was based on what you said. As such, when you now tell me that your position is the opposite of what I say it is, either you're directly contradicting yourself or I've made some sort of logical error. And I can't find the error."
Yes, you've made some sort of logical error. No, you're not able to see it. Let it be.