If God does not exist, then everything is permissible

[Mystic_Banana]

Oh, and to Mystic Banana - the finite life is still too long to be spent wallowing in misery and aimlessness. If I die knowing I have done my best to realise my own potential, and have contributed to the happiness of others, I will be perfectly content, even if there’s nothing to go to afterwards.

If life were finite, why would the length matter? I find that very short sighted of you

Fair enough, but I see nothing in your ideology which resembles an imperative for anyone to do anything, or for it to matter, if you’re right about the nature of things, whether you are perfectly content, wallowing in misery and aimlessness or not. Let me know if you find anything that makes it actually reasonably worth doing anything in particular according to your beliefs!

 

[Sair]

Christian morality is superior to secular morality because it does not stake everything on this life.

Again, show me your evidence for an afterlife, and I’ll concede you have a point. In any case, Christian morality can only be concerned with our actions in this life, simply because we have no basis - other than our own wishes - upon which to put faith in an afterlife of perfect justice and happiness.

We are prepared to sacrifice everything in the hope that justice will be done but hope is not certainty. We can choose to be selfless in this life because we are prepared to take the risk that we are mistaken. It is not our fault if we are right! You cannot take that risk because you don’t believe there is an afterlife.

Hope is never certainty, regardless of whether we believe in an afterlife or not. But some hope is more well-founded than other kinds of hope. If a person sacrifices himself in the firm belief that doing so will better the lot of others, is he more noble for doing so in the absence of corroborating evidence? Is he more noble for sacrificing himself to gain an uncertain eternal reward, even though his action may do no actual good for those he leaves behind? That seems to be the basis of the Christian notion of self-sacrifice - because there is no corroborating evidence that an eternal state of happiness exists.

Nor do you believe it is possible to be completely selfless because you believe we are animals whose behaviour is caused by events beyond our control.

Misrepresentation. All of our actions are influenced by circumstances. Some of these are self-imposed circumstances, but many others are not. Give me one example in which any person has acted in a purely selfless manner - and please note that this excludes belief in eternal reward, because that feeds into self-interest.

We are just cogs in the machine of nature, no different in that respect from any other animal - to your way of thinking. Belief in moral responsibility is incompatible with materialism because it infringes the law of the conservation of energy. As Kant noted, ought implies can. Animals quite simply cannot act rationally and independently of the ways in which they have been programmed.

But if we humans were to act entirely rationally, it would lead to outcomes even you could not stomach. Emotion generally precedes rationality - we could feel before we could reason.

The fact that it would be a happier world has no bearing on the ultimate nature of morality - which implies that we can choose and act to make it so.

We can choose, but our success depends upon the actions of others, which we generally can’t control to the requisite extent, even if we happen to be unscrupulous totalitarian dictators.

Given that human beings are irrational to some extent (regardless of what we believe about our origin) there is no reason why some people can opt for the folly of the Cross. It is a form of insanity because it implies to valuing another more than oneself rejecting the principle that we are all equal.

The folly of the Cross has nothing to do with the unlikelihood of selfless love - it is the rank unreasonableness of the notion that God had to sacrifice himself to appease himself for the actions of humans whose imperfections God himself created.

You take it for granted that the goals of autocrats are inferior to those of democrats! Why should they be?

Because democrats at least pay lip service to the notion that all humans ought to have the opportunity to have a say in their future prospects.

It is fanciful to suppose that morality can be explained entirely by the fact that we are social beings. In a democratic society people have the right to protest and demonstrate without violence even to the extent of disrupting normal activity. Why? Because the freedom of the individual is valued in addition to social cohesion. When confronted with an unjust regime we are morally justified in attempting to overthrow those have imposed harmony by force. Morality cannot be explained solely by the fact that we are social beings. You believe we are animals but in fact we are persons… and that makes all the difference…

Did you miss what I said about balancing individual autonomy with social cohesion?

“often” is the key word. When it comes to the crunch we can be more successful by not working with others.

Tell that to anyone who decides to build an apartment block, or indeed to manage a farm on their own.

Not at all. It is absurd to deny that we have a body with instincts and physical desires.

Then why do so many Christians feel that this body and its instincts should be ignored or overridden for the sake of undetectable benefits?

Do you reject the concept of personhood altogether? If not why not?

I reject it insofar as it is used to create a chasm between humans and all other living things.

If we are animals through and through there is no reason why animals should not have exactly the same rights as us. Nor any reason why we should be more valuable. Nor why we should be responsible for our behaviour (unless they are too!). This is your dilemma!

Then you, by contrast with me, reject the notion of differing capacities. It might be instructive for you to read some of my posts on the thread regarding animals and souls. I have never denied that humans have highly sophisticated brains, and greater capacity to reason and make moral judgements - the difference is, I don’t reject the experience of any other animal as unimportant. Where basic needs are the same - in terms of capacity for suffering or for experiencing satisfaction or contentment - equal consideration ought to be given, regardless of species.

 

[Ender]

You can’t make moral claims about the nature of morality under normal circumstances, and especially not in this case.

I haven’t made any moral claims about the nature of morality; I am drawing (what I think is) a logical conclusion about the nature of morality based on your position that “moral claims possess no truth value.”

Here, you’re saying that all ethics are worthless if all ethics lack truth values.

I have not attempted to make any connection between worth and truth; you may assume that’s where I’m going but that conclusion is not based on anything I have said. Having a detailed plan before building a house is worthwhile but it is certainly not a moral issue. Having a firm set of internal guidelines about how to live ones life is valuable but, if morality is subjective, they can no more be called ethical than could a workout regimen. Personal codes can be very valuable even though ethics don’t really exist in a subjective world because, in your own words: “moral claims possess no truth value.” I’m not talking about what is or is not valuable but about what is or is not true.

Ender

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And when people follow your god’s morality, they end up with the genocide of non-Jewish populations (according to the OT), the crusades, the inquisition…

what genocide of non-Jewish populations, are you talking about. the Crusades were a war over territory, the inquistion was the trials of heretics. a few thousands died over hundreds of years, for the usual reasons. people die in war. heretics die if they dont recant.

the secular governments slaughter tens of millions for no better reason than they are poor, or Jewish, or Gypsies.

2 very different situations.

People, to generalise over the course of history, just are vicious by nature, but if that was all we were, we would have destroyed ourselves as a species long ago. Because we also possess reason and empathy, social cohesion is possible - but there have to be agreed-upon rules and at least some common values - that’s what morality is, regardless of how it is worked out.

that isnt morality, thats peoples opinions, that kind of thinking legitimizes the pogroms of the of the last century. after all those peoples “morals” allowed the pogroms and holocaust. to occur. thats not a great thing for the idea that a decent set of morals can be derived fromn group opinion.

So you have some other source for Christian morality than the depictions of your god in the bible? Love to know what those are, and on what basis you give them any credence.

your G-d told people, who wrote it in the Bible.

The unsavoury dealings referred to are the mass slaughter of whole populations of people, including women and children, in order that the Israelites would have somewhere to settle;

that never happened. please post where you find it, so i can post the part that explains what those people did to be punished.

Lot offering his virgin daughters to be raped by the people of Sodom,

G-d didnt do that, Lot did. the Angels prevented it. i dont see how you can attribute that to G-d.

then later impregnating them (albeit in a drunken haze which the daughters had deliberately induced);

the story states that Lot was completely unaware, not in a drunken haze, but passed out. they, raped him. where, oh where is your outrage?

btw. again, not G-ds doing, but the girls.

enslavement of the Israelites for ‘disobedience’;

what, you shouldnt punish the disobedient? or allow them to suffer the fruits of their disobediance?

you dont ground or spank your kids when they do something wrong?

the notion that the sins of one generation should be visited on the next several generations, and that this somehow constitutes justice…

it is Just. you dont like it, but that doesnt make it unjust. we simply have a different standard for our legal system.

The list goes on, but alas there is limited posting space.

some of these are made up. some of them are misconstrued to be G-ds fault. and some simply dont fit what you think moral is. which brings us back to this claim that G-d does immoral things. none of that qualifies as immoral.

can you support your assertin with something that G-d did that was immoral? i mean realloy immoral, not just something that doesnt fit your idea of morality?

As for contradictions - according to Genesis, God created the world twice, in two slightly different ways. Which is the correct account?

where? verse please.

In Leviticus, it states that a man must not marry his dead brother’s wife; in Deuteronomy, it states that a man must marry his dead brother’s wife (this one apparently caused Henry VIII some consternation).

where? verses please.

Did you ever notice that the four Gospels give four different accounts of the life and words of Jesus? Which one is correct?

all of them are correct, they were simply written by 4 different people with four different points of view. nothing strange about that.

How can we be sure what Jesus actually said?

the same way we are sure that any historical event occured. we have to trust the witness of those who were there.

you cant even prove the moonlanding happened. and that was not too long ago. yet there are people whho deny it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And let’s not forget the overarching contradiction - the fact that God completely changes his nature from the OT to the NT, not something that ought to be possible for an immutable god to do.

G-ds nature didnt change. a new phase of our redemption, foretold from the earliest writings unfolded. it was planned from the beginning.

No matter what those reasons are, the fact remains that it is impossible to reconcile an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good god with the sheer scale of suffering in the world; suffering for which an omnipotent creator god, if such a being there is, bears ultimate responsibility. No amount of apologetics or appeal to inscrutability can get around this.

what does suffering have to do with G-d? thats a very common misconception.

Nothing is wrong with reverence for your god, per se - you’re entitled to worship whatever disembodied and undetectable entity you wish, so long as you don’t let that reverence lead you to treat others badly.

as long as they dont do what G-d says is wrong, they have nothing to fear.

What’s wrong with god being jealous and vengeful is that the pathological jealousy and vengefulness attributed to the Bible’s god are not qualities that we generally associate with goodness and benevolence (unless we engage in Orwellian doublethink). You might say that we don’t know the mind of god (which is a bit of a twinkie defence, if you think about it) - but that doesn’t really leave us on very solid footing if we believe it is morally acceptable to be understanding and forgiving.

and thats just it, you dont associate it with goodness and benevolence. yet, if your children showed a preference for another woman, you would be jealous no? and righteously at that.

if you can feel that way and it be moral, then why not G-d?

Show me some unequivocal evidence for your god, and I will concede that you have a point.

sure, easy.

the mathematical proof of Messianic Prophecy. its undeniable. here are some places to start.

godonthe.net/jewish/odds.html
christianarsenal.com/Apol…Prophecies.htm
jewishvoice.org/site/Page…anicProphecies
allabouttruth.org/messianic-prophecy-2.htm
jewsforjesus.org/publicat…vurah/11_02/01

unless you mean to ask why there is soemthing rather than nothing? the answer being, there is no such thing as “nothing”

I enjoy honing my argumentative skills, and having the opportunity to consolidate my own ideas - that’s why I keep finding myself back here. I’m familiar with what you believe, since I was raised as a Catholic, but over the course of about 15 years, I gradually came to the conclusion that atheism is a far more reasonable default position than theistic faith.

i was born Catholic, but raised protestant, and then atheist. yet i came to a different conclusion when i realized that “itjusthappened” isnt an answer while “G-ddidit” is the only possibility.

Values form the basis on which the morality of actions is determined.

G-ds perfect values yes, humans flawed values, no. humans arent very good at making up morality apart from G-d when they try you get tens of millions of innocent bodies.

It’s a good story, but tragically, Christians have historically not been amongst the last to cast stones.

bald assertion. back that up with something.

I don’t believe it to be literal, but I’m not a fundamentalist Christian!

then why did you argue that we should? do you think that fundamentalism and literalism are the same thing?

The phrase, ‘slaves, obey your masters’ doesn’t make that distinction. In any case, I’m pretty sure indentured servitude is also frowned upon these days.

that phrase doesnt support slavery. it instructs a slave as to the way to behave. it also says to render unto ceasar, what is ceasars. ceasar was the state god. surely that phrase cant be construed as to worship ceasar?

most of the things you are talking about here are deliberate misconstruals, common to the non-theist literature. but wholly insupportable under serious examination.

i would be happy to pick any part of this long post for further deliberation.

indentured servitude isnt frowned on, we call it “employment”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

At what point have we been able to override the laws of the universe?!

the appearance of free will should be impossible. it violates the laws of both a determnism and indeterminism.

thats a huge gaping hole in the laws of physics.

All animals seek - consciously or otherwise - to improve their lot in life,

please offer some evidence for this assertion, i have never seen an animal learn annew skill without an outside influence.

Stray dogs in Moscow have even learned how to use the subway…

i trained my cat opie to fetch too…

I think you will find that the complexity of human social interactions means that none of us act outside of our social programming.

we dont have social programming. we have free will. we can perform any of an infinite number of actions in response to stimuli.

What benefit would it be to a horse to practice mooing? No other horses moo. However, horses and cows pastured together seem to manage quite well, through nonverbal signals. I can see how it might be useful for us to be able to speak dog, or cat, or chicken - but I can’t see it happening any time soon. All we have are nonverbal, behavioural signals - which are interpretable in the common language of animal understanding.

my point being that animals dont do things that dont benefit themk for their own improvement. it doesnt benefit me to speak spanish. the people in my family all speak english first. its the extended in laws that dont, and i never see them. i learn it solely for my personal pleasure. i play the ukulele, not for any reason, other than i enjoy learning new things to improve myself.

animals dont do that.

No animal is the same as any other animal. No cow is the same as a fish.
However, in terms of human treatment of other animals, a cow might as well be a fish - we disregard their needs in equal measure.

you know i think they are little deterministic meatbots. we had that conversation last march.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

**Sair: **

Warpspeedpetey’s claims are baited. He plays stupid to suck you into an argument for which you have to discredit claim after claim until it’s determined that we can’t know anything by the epistemic standards that we hold for Religion. It’d like a bad joke, but more than anything, it’s off topic.

Warpspeedpetey, if it sounds like a fairytale, it probably is. If you want to talk about morals and permissibility, let’s.

 

[Ender]

G-d didnt do that, Lot did. the Angels prevented it. i dont see how you can attribute that to G-d.

I know you are passionate about this but think about the thread topic: it is not about whether Christianity is true but about whether, in the subjectivist (atheist) world it makes any more sense to believe in morality than to believe in unicorns. Take the debate to their turf and let them defend their position which, it seems to me, makes it impossible to say that Mother Theresa was morally superior to the Marquis de Sade.

Ender

 

[warpspeedpetey]

**Sair: **

Warpspeedpetey’s claims are baited. He plays stupid to suck you into an argument for which you have to discredit claim after claim until it’s determined that we can’t know anything by the epistemic standards that we hold for Religion. It’d like a bad joke, but more than anything, it’s off topic.

so you agree that you have different epistemic standards for religious events, rather than other historical events?

that doesnt sound like a joke, that sounds like a truth that you find uncomfortable. but if its the truth, and you are a rational person seeking the truth. how can you ignore it?

double standards are inherently irrational and hypocritical

Warpspeedpetey, if it sounds like a fairytale, it probably is.

that statement is the fallacious argument, called the argument from incredulity. simply because you are incredulous of a claim, doesnt mean it is not true. it only means that you dont know the method by whcih it was accomplished.

it is obvious to me that you are now aware of the gaping holes in the arguments that you have been making. i know they sound good when reading atheist literature, but as rational examination exposes, they are pretty weak when confronted. that is not your fault. you were sucked in by those arguments as was i at one time.

please take this oppurtunity to come home. we still love you. He still loves you.

maybe these arguments being exposed is the sign you are seeking. it is possible that G-d is speaking to your heart right now. what you were sure of yesterday is no longer as solid as it seemed. let down your shields. let Him in.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I know you are passionate about this but think about the thread topic: it is not about whether Christianity is true but about whether, in the subjectivist (atheist) world it makes any more sense to believe in morality than to believe in unicorns. Take the debate to their turf and let them defend their position which, it seems to me, makes it impossible to say that Mother Theresa was morally superior to the Marquis de Sade.

Ender

im happy to argue subjectivism. but that argument doesnt occur in a vacuum. it is going to bring up the validity of Christianity. cant be helped.

 

[TEPO]

If there are no true morals --handed down by a supernatural authority (God) -which encourages certain acts while discouraging other acts for hidden reasons… If the morals and their religion are false…

Then the only purpose of the human being is mere survival until natural death…
So selfish desires should become our world, where sex, drugs, and cannibalism would fulfill our purpose and survival until natural death…

Why then do we do anything that helps others, since we could simply please ourselves instead?

Perhaps humans are merely a part nature, where one life serves to expand the existance of others (the natural life cycle) ? But, if we are merely part of the life cycle, and we know it --then why would we remain part of it, when we know that it does not serve our selfish personal interests? Why not let those stupid “Christians” remain part of the life cycle while we “athiests” do as we please?

There must be some other reason that athiests do not self-indulge themselves to death… There must be morals… They have been handed down by God, and branded into the minds of those who have heard it… I say, the fear of God can never been purged from any of us.

God saves us from ourselves…

 

[AntiTheist]

After spending the weekend away from this thread, I have returned to drop a few more gems of insight:

But this [making the value judgment that Hitler is an SOB who must be stopped for the safety of the rest of the world] is just name-calling. It’s “Boo!” with emphasis.

Um. No, it’s not “emphasis.” When I call someone an SOB who needs to be stopped for the safety of the world, I mean something very different than I do when I say “Boo.”

Again, my value judgment is completely and totally subjective. It happens to be that the vast majority of people share that value judgment because most people in my culture share similar political values.

For curiosity’s sake: Isn’t knowledge a value? Why should we value it?

Humans originally valued knowledge because it was useful, it conferred a survival advantage. Thanks to civilization, we started teaching each generation to value knowledge, and before you know it we have knowledge valued for its own sake, not necessarily for any immediate benefits it conveys.

It’s just that, ultimately, if you did one of the above things when no one else could know, you aren’t accountable – unless you are accountable to God.

And that fact bothers you – that is why you feel the need to put your trust in the fairy tale called “morality.”

TEPO:

If the morals and their religion are false…

To be clear, it is religions that are false and moral statements that are actually value judgments that possess no truth value – that is, they are not true or false statements about the world, but statements of personal value, what people subjectively favor or do not favor.

Then the only purpose of the human being is mere survival until natural death

Your life has whatever purpose you want to give it.

So selfish desires should become our world, where sex, drugs, and cannibalism would fulfill our purpose and survival until natural death

Well, I’ve certainly got no problem with sex and drugs, provided that people aren’t harming others. If you want to practice cannibalism, you’re going to have quite a problem in most civilized countries, though.

Why then do we do anything that helps others, since we could simply please ourselves instead?

Because we have values – values that come from biology, society, reason, tradition, etc.

There must be some other reason that athiests do not self-indulge themselves to death

Values. They come from completely natural sources, not from boogey men or gods.

I say, the fear of God can never been purged from any of us.

Uh huh. Good luck providing evidence for it.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

Warpspeedpetey, you’re all over the place. Focus on something (preferably the topic at hand) and we’ll discuss it.

 

[Ender]

Again, my value judgment is completely and totally subjective. It happens to be that the vast majority of people share that value judgment because most people in my culture share similar political values.

Whether or not others agree with your values is irrelevant to any individual in deciding how he should behave. If you like helping people then that’s what you should do but if my preference runs to eating them then, while you can pass laws outlawing it, you can only do so on the basis that you don’t like it, not that it is wrong. Your arguments against doing a thing seem based on whether the results of certain actions are inimical to the kind of society you personally prefer. Would you consent to live in a society where all the rules determining what you could or could not do were determined by majority vote?

I’m wondering if you’d really like to live in a world where everyone claimed for themselves the same freedoms you claim for yourself. Do you have one or two basic tenets on which your world view view is founded? Such as, “Each person can and must create his own moral system?”

Ender

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warpspeedpetey, you’re all over the place. Focus on something (preferably the topic at hand) and we’ll discuss it.

you asked me “how d’y’figure” i answered. thats not all over the place. i was speaking to the specific issues you raised.

as to the topic at hand. it is clear to me that subjectivism is nothing more than morality being peoples opinion. there is no rational reason for me or anyone else not to do whatever we want as long as we can avoid the negative consequences. if all morals have the same value, then the serial killer and the saints actions are of equal value. the normal appeals to the golden rule, or some common humanity arent rational structures, so i dont think subjectivism is a rational workable system for society to function by.

i dont think there are great glowing platonic forms in the sky that form objective morals. when i say objective morals i mean that G-ds own morals, subjective to Him, should be our objective standard.

so to me, subjectivism is a non-issue.

 

[AntiTheist]

If you like helping people then that’s what you should do but if my preference runs to eating them then, while you can pass laws outlawing it, you can only do so on the basis that you don’t like it, not that it is wrong.

Right, but keep in mind that not liking cannibalism wasn’t an arbitrary decision on my part – it’s part of a values set that I possess, and as I’ve already discussed, values come from a number of places outside of myself. Most people in this society also value not allowing cannibalism because our values have formed from very similar sources.

Your arguments against doing a thing seem based on whether the results of certain actions are inimical to the kind of society you personally prefer.

There are two things here: one is my arguments against doing a thing and the other is my arguments against legally allowing a thing. My arguments against doing a thing don’t exist. I think people act in accord with their values, including locking up other people for not following certain agreed-upon rules. That’s it. There’s no ultimate “should.”

Now, given a particular context – like, for example, the value that the vast, vast majority of us place on an orderly society – we can have a debate over the claim that certain laws will promote such an end. Starting from a context that we mostly value orderly societies that still allow for a reasonable degree of personal freedom, we can make good arguments for making certain things illegal.

Would you consent to live in a society where all the rules determining what you could or could not do were determined by majority vote?

Maybe, but I think I would prefer a system of checks and balances to make sure that people don’t make too many radical changes all at once – because radical changes tend to be bad for sustaining an orderly society (which, remember is part of a value we all share).

I’m wondering if you’d really like to live in a world where everyone claimed for themselves the same freedoms you claim for yourself.

I do live in that world. Everybody lives according to their values. Some people like to claim that their values are magically correct so that they can impose those values on others, but that’s not a true claim.

Do you have one or two basic tenets on which your world view view is founded?

My worldview is founded on reality, and in reality, people act in accordance with their values. There’s nothing else.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

While waiting for a reply from reason blokey, I can’t resist butting in… that’s what a couple of pints does, I suppose

Right, but keep in mind that not liking cannibalism wasn’t an arbitrary decision on my part – it’s part of a values set that I possess, and as I’ve already discussed, values come from a number of places outside of myself. Most people in this society also value not allowing cannibalism because our values have formed from very similar sources.

Try and explains why it matters, and why those values matter according to your own version of reality, and even your own statement below, which seems to refute that it does.

There are two things here: one is my arguments against doing a thing and the other is my arguments against legally allowing a thing. My arguments against doing a thing don’t exist. I think people act in accord with their values, including locking up other people for not following certain agreed-upon rules. That’s it. There’s no ultimate “should.”

Then those values have no real value, other than imaginary ones you apply to them ,and so are bereft of any reasonable value at all.

Maybe, but I think I would prefer a system of checks and balances to make sure that people don’t make too many radical changes all at once – because radical changes tend to be bad for sustaining an orderly society (which, remember is part of a value we all share).

And that would matter - why, according to your reasoning? Your previous statement refutes that such things matter in any real sense according to your own understanding of reality

I do live in that world. Everybody lives according to their values. Some people like to claim that their values are magically correct so that they can impose those values on others, but that’s not a true claim.

This statement of false knowlege moves me to accuse you of hypocritically assuming they’re wrong without conclusive evidence, and wishing to impose your own essentially valueless values upon everybody else, according to another similarly unprovable dogmatism

My worldview is founded on reality,

Or so you like to believe - I see no evidence you are capable of realising this objectively

and in reality, people act in accordance with their values. There’s nothing else.

Well people do act according to their value - but do those values always make sense? According to your interpretation of reality? I’m yet to find any reason why you yourself would consider your own morality to matter to anyone, logically, except by force and arbitrary sympathy

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

some common humanity arent rational structures, so i dont think subjectivism is a rational workable system for society to function by.

Whether it’s workable or not is not the concern; it’s the only system we have. It works as good and awfully as it can. And where many people use *survival free of oppression * as the measuring stick with which people conduct themselves (as most people do, at least concerning themselves), then our subjective means work fine to achieve it’s goals. If you don’t think this is a workable system to function by, you’ll have a hard time explaining what workable even means. If you mean morally, you’re presupposing morality. If you mean that it is unworkable because it seems arbitrary, I would ask ‘arbitrary to what end? That it doesn’t count as morality (which is true), or that it doesn’t protect people in some way? (which is false).’

 

[AntiTheist]

Well people do act according to their value - but do those values always make sense?

There seems to be a misunderstanding. You want me to explain why values “matter” or whether they “make sense.” Values neither matter, in the ultimate sense that you probably mean, nor are they rational. They are.

I’m not saying that people act according to their values because those values ultimately matter to the universe or because it’s logical to act in accordance with your values. I’m saying that people cannot help but act in accordance with their values. There’s no higher “mattering” here.

Where does value come from? A lot of sources. Some of it comes from biology (empathy, instincts, biological necessity), some of it comes from traditions – values that have worked in the past get passed down and taught to children and internalized by them – other values come from reason in the sense that we decide that certain things are important in relation to other, non-rational values.

None of these things are valuable to anything other than human minds. The universe doesn’t care one bit about these things. “Value” exists entirely in thinking minds, and that’s it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Whether it’s workable or not is not the concern; it’s the only system we have. It works as good and awfully as it can.

the system we have is a defacto objective morality based in the west on Christian morality. only in lawless places do you see the actual exercise of subjective morality.

And where many people use *survival free of oppression * as the measuring stick with which people conduct themselves (as most people do, at least concerning themselves), then our subjective means work fine to achieve it’s goals.

by that measuring stick, societies that reject G-ds law have failed miserably. look at the non-thiest regimes of stalin, mao, pol pot, etc. when left to their own devices these societies exercised their own brands of morality. the consequence was more than a hundred million dead peasants, just in the last century.

the track record for such things is pretty poor.

If you don’t think this is a workable system to function by, you’ll have a hard time explaining what workable even means. If you mean morally, you’re presupposing morality.

i dont have a problem presupposing morality. what is subjective to G-d, is objective to us in the de facto sense if not in the sense of platos forms. people get tied up in the objective/subjective word debate. i agree there are no objective morals that exist without G-d. not that there are no morals objective from our position.