If God doesn't exist, is there any point in being a good person?

[PRmerger]

That is the point. I cannot even think of any “moral rule” that has been univocally condemned in every society across the ages.

What about this, Spock: has there been any society across the ages that declared that it was a morally virtuous thing for a man to take another man’s wife/woman?

Now, perhaps you can find an example of a society in which such a thing was tolerated (perhaps there was a bully in the king’s seat??) but I don’t think you will ever find a society that declared: * It is morally virtuous and just thing to take another man’s wife.*

IOW: there has been a “moral rule” that has been univocally condemned: taking another man’s woman.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Spock;8153782:

That is the point. I cannot even think of any “moral rule” that has been univocally condemned in every society across the ages.

What about this, Spock: has there been any society across the ages that declared that it was a morally virtuous thing for a man to take another man’s wife/woman?

Wouldn’t societies in which this was accepted be considered polyandrous and not see it as taking a man’s wife as much as behaving within their cultural norms? If so then Wikipedia had a page on “Polyandry” that list some culters in which some like this may fly.

 

[Spock]

I made no distinction between long and short term interest; I simply asked if you could make an argument for why I should do something not in my best interest.

I already explained. If you are smart, you recognize that there are hierarchies of interests, precisely because we are not only individuals, but also social beings. There can be a clash between the individual interest and the interests of a group we belong to. In such a case a compromize is due.

I’m not sure why such behavior would be that obviously dumb. Drug pushers are seemingly satisfied with their lives lived in comfort at the expense of others. Explain where they’ve gone wrong.

As long as the buyers were not originally forced to become addicted (they did it on their own volition) there is nothing wrong with supplying their needs. All the idiotic drug-laws should be abolished, and the problem would disappear.

Ah, so your reason for giving to someone else is the expectation that you will get something in return … as I said, I understand why you would do things in your own interest. This is still no reason for giving without expectation of a quid pro quo.

No, you still don’t understand. It is not necessarily “I” who gets something in return. I value the “whole climate” (if you will) of the whole society just as I value my own well being, and if I can raise the level of the society’s “well being” that is a good investment. Of course, I am not about to spread my good will indiscriminately. The people who are closer to me will receive a larger portion of it. (Basic biological inheritence in action).

I think we’ve been down this road before. This would make the rules of golf a moral code. It seems that you equate laws with morals.

The rules of golf are part of the moral code. Just like not picking your toenails at a reception. Or yawning into someone else’s face. Some laws reflect some moral rules, others do not. Some laws are contrary to what most people consider moral.

So, is the fact that a society has a set of moral values what makes them objectively exist?

Of course.

Is there any way to say that the values of Society X are any better or worse than those of Society Y?

The question is too vague. From whose point of view?

I’m trying to make the point as clear as possible: can you explain what makes murder immoral?

It is only immoral in certain societies in certain times. An interesting example to the contrary would be a few excellent sci-fi books by Robert Sheckley, for example: “Hunter - Victim”. Or a real-world example: in certain socities physician assisted suicide (which is called “murder” by some people) is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Spock]

It seems you are saying that when you talk about absolute morality you mean that lying is wrong in all circumstances, even if it was to, for example, hide someone who is being sought by someone wishing to do hard to them. That could be a definition of absolute morality.

Yes, that would be the definition.

Objective morality would still be the same rules across time, culture, and place but it would, quite sensibly, rely on the conditions.

No, the rules are not necessarily the same either.

I dont doubt the numbers. I doubt their interpretation.

That is something I cannot help with.

Aren’t most crimes moral misdeeds? Of course.

“Most” crimes? Maybe. Definitely not all “crimes”. Laws are artificial, legal constructs, which sometimes reflect the prevailing moral climate in a society, mostly they do not.

All criminal law is founded on the idea that the criminal act is morally wrong.

I don’t think we can make such a generalized assessment. First, there are far too many laws. Second, most of them are nonsensical. Third, they are a hindrance to society. A good set of laws should be designed around the concept that people are free agents, and their activities should not be curtailed as long as those activities are not detrimental to others - either directly, or hypothetically, with a big probability. But this is the topic of a different conversation.

As morality changes so does what is criminal. Modern criminal law reflects modern morality which has more than a healthy does (you mean: dose) of atheist influence.

That is your opinion (no doubt shared by many of your Catholic peers). I think that a huge percentage of the current criminal code should be discarded. And all the remaining laws should be based upon secular concepts.

 

[HAYATO]

the hypocrisy of religious institutions shows no bounds. While they condemn materialism and preach about the afterlife they have amassed great wealth and are exempted from paying tax. Whenever I pick up Christian literature, I come across admonitions of how sinful we all are, how pride and self worth are a sin and that we can all be saved by admitting that we are sinful, with self-effacement and belief in God.

To submit to such rubbish, would be committing intellectual suicide

 

[Spock]

What about this, Spock: has there been any society across the ages that declared that it was a morally virtuous thing for a man to take another man’s wife/woman?

Now, perhaps you can find an example of a society in which such a thing was tolerated (perhaps there was a bully in the king’s seat??) but I don’t think you will ever find a society that declared: * It is morally virtuous and just thing to take another man’s wife.*

IOW: there has been a “moral rule” that has been univocally condemned: taking another man’s woman.

ThinkingSapien already answered, but I wish to add: not all societies had the concept of “women belong to men”, so the “my woman” was not even an existing concept, therefore it could not be violated.

Now, most societies we know of held some form of golden rules as a good rule to approach morality. That is as close as you can get to “absolute” morality. .

 

[PRmerger]

Wouldn’t societies in which this was accepted be considered polyandrous and** not see it as taking a man’s wife **as much as behaving within their cultural norms? If so then Wikipedia had a page on “Polyandry” that list some culters in which some like this may fly.

Exactly, TS. They would not see it as taking another man’s wife because, of course, taking another man’s wife is a universal no-no.

There are no societies in which it is considered morally virtuous to take another man’s woman.

IOW: there has been a “moral rule” that has been univocally condemned: taking another man’s woman.

 

[PRmerger]

ThinkingSapien already answered, but I wish to add: not all societies had the concept of “women belong to men”, so the “my woman” was not even an existing concept, therefore it could not be violated.

Fair enough.

But do you have an example of* any* society which declared that it was good and healthy to take another man’s wife?

Now, most societies we know of held some form of golden rules as a good rule to approach morality. That is as close as you can get to “absolute” morality

Well, there you go.

Violating the Golden Rule is an example of “a ‘moral rule’ that has been univocally condemned in every society across the ages.”

 

[Spock]

Fair enough.

But do you have an example of* any* society which declared that it was good and healthy to take another man’s wife?

No, I don’t. But don’t forget that not all rules are “written”, most are not.

Well, there you go.

Violating the Golden Rule is an example of “a ‘moral rule’ that has been univocally condemned in every society across the ages.”

Don’t confuse “most” with “all”. We cannot state that “every society” subscribed to the golden rules. Besides the two versions of the golden rule are not specific, they are pretty vague. The direct one simply says: “be nice to others”, the inverted one one says: “don’t be mean to others”. So, even if “all” societies adhere to them, the rule is so generic that it is next to meaningless. They must be “translated” to specifics before they can be addressed in a meaningful fashion.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I don’t. But don’t forget that not all rules are “written”, most are not.

We are agreed that not all rules are written.

This is, however, irrelevant.

Don’t confuse “most” with “all”. We cannot state that “every society” subscribed to the golden rules. Besides the two versions of the golden rule are not specific, they are pretty vague. The direct one simply says: “be nice to others”, the inverted one one says: “don’t be mean to others”. So, even if “all” societies adhere to them, the rule is so generic that it is next to meaningless. They must be “translated” to specifics before they can be addressed in a meaningful fashion.

Can you provide us with an example of a society which declared that it is not good to treat others as you would treat yourself?

 

[PRmerger]

No, I don’t.

So here we have another example of “a ‘moral rule’ that has been univocally condemned in every society across the ages.”

To wit, we have already agreed that there are 2 univocally condemned moral norms:

• to take someone else’s wife/woman
• to treat others with injustice

 

[Spock]

So here we have another example of “a ‘moral rule’ that has been univocally condemned in every society across the ages.”

To wit, we have already agreed that there are 2 univocally condemned moral norms:

• to take someone else’s wife/woman
• to treat others with injustice

Come on. Not all societies had a concept of “someone’s wife or woman”. Not all societies had a concept of “justice”. None of those societies adhere or condemn the norms you are speaking about. What is you point?

 

[exnihilo]

“Most” crimes? Maybe. Definitely not all “crimes”. Laws are artificial, legal constructs, which sometimes reflect the prevailing moral climate in a society, mostly they do not.

I don’t think we can make such a generalized assessment. First, there are far too many laws. Second, most of them are nonsensical. Third, they are a hindrance to society. A good set of laws should be designed around the concept that people are free agents, and their activities should not be curtailed as long as those activities are not detrimental to others - either directly, or hypothetically, with a big probability. But this is the topic of a different conversation.

That is your opinion (no doubt shared by many of your Catholic peers). I think that a huge percentage of the current criminal code should be discarded. And all the remaining laws should be based upon secular concepts.

Pretty much all laws with a criminal penalty are based on the idea that the act is wrong. I find many of the laws to be bad or nonsensical myself. But that does not change the fact that the way they are passed is by making appeals to morality. Even taxes are based on the moral concept that I have an obligation to support the state.

This being so the law reflects morality. At one time abortion was considered immoral and thus was illegal. Now a large enough portion of the population does not find it immoral therefore it is legal. That being the case abortionists are no longer in violation of criminal law.

The law is always claimed to be moral. Thus no matter what the law is people who advocate for it are asserting their morality. And since this is the case the prevailing opinion about morality will dictate who is in violation of the law since the law comes from morality.

 

[PRmerger]

Come on. Not all societies had a concept of “someone’s wife or woman”.

'Tis true, this.

However, the fact that “not all societies” had a concept of “someone’s wife” is irrelevant, too.

The fact remains that there is* not a single society* that has declared it to be virtuous to take another man’s woman.

IOW, this is a universal no-no.

Not all societies had a concept of “justice”.

This is categorically untrue. I defy you to find us a society that declares, “Injustice is good; justice is bad.”

None of those societies adhere or condemn the norms you are speaking about. What is you point?

This, too, is categorically untrue. **All **societies condemn the taking of another man’s woman. The fact that there is polyandry supports my argument. One has to consider it “not taking another man’s wife” in order for it to be permitted.

 

[Ender]

As long as the buyers were not originally forced to become addicted (they did it on their own volition) there is nothing wrong with supplying their needs.

This discussion was about whether your assertion that it was dumb for a person to succeed at the expense of others was correct. To the pusher, why would it matter to him why you bought his product? He wants your money and cares nothing for you. The point here is that he can succeed quite nicely without worrying at all about those he hurts. In fact, in the drug business, it appears that the more ruthless one is the more likely he is to be successful. What is the argument that this isn’t a good life model? Is it immoral to break a moral law one disagrees with?

Ender

 

[Spock]

The law is always claimed to be moral. Thus no matter what the law is people who advocate for it are asserting their morality. And since this is the case the prevailing opinion about morality will dictate who is in violation of the law since the law comes from morality.

No, they do not. And even if they “claimed”, what of it? A claim is just a claim. Here is a local ordinance for you: “it is illegal to feed someone else’s parking meter”. I am not kidding, this ordinance exists. So there are laws which prohibit helping someone else. What kind of morality would that be?

Laws have nothing to do with morals. Whatever some people (lawmakers) wish to put into laws and which pass judicical muster will become laws. Sure, the lawmakers will assert “something”. But they do not reflect the “prevailing opinion” in every case. Mostly they are elected because the other side is even less palatable. In the US there are laws against importing non-US-approved drugs for personal use even if those drugs might save the person’s life, and even if those drugs are already approved in the originating country (Canada or Europe, for example).

 

[Spock]

'The fact remains that there is* not a single society* that has declared it to be virtuous to take another man’s woman.

So what? There was no society ever which would have “declared” that it is wrong to stuff 47 tennis balls into your own toilet bowl.

IOW, this is a universal no-no.

So to stuff 47 tennis balls into your own toilet bowl is a “universal no-no”?

This is categorically untrue. I defy you to find us a society that declares, “Injustice is good; justice is bad.”

That is not what I said. There were some societies which had no concept of justice, which had no concept of ownership.

 

[Spock]

This discussion was about whether your assertion that it was dumb for a person to succeed at the expense of others was correct. To the pusher, why would it matter to him why you bought his product? He wants your money and cares nothing for you. The point here is that he can succeed quite nicely without worrying at all about those he hurts. In fact, in the drug business, it appears that the more ruthless one is the more likely he is to be successful. What is the argument that this isn’t a good life model? Is it immoral to break a moral law one disagrees with?

If the pusher and thhe addict get into a relationship on a volitional basis, it is no one else’s business. The addict can stop the relationship any time (not easy, I know, but possible).

But your point is taken. There are instances when an uncaring, fully selfish behavior will be beneficial for the person. So what? Life is unfair, and there is no God, who would come down and render justice. There are instances when someone falls off the third floor and escapes the experiance unscathed. Is that therefore the “recommeded way” to leave your 3rd floor apartment? A few examples to the contrary do not invalidate the rule.

I did not say that it is impossible to lead a selfish, yet successful lifestyle. I only said that generally the mixed strategy (partly selfish, partly cooperative) behavior is the optmial strategy. And that can be proven mathematically.

 

[Ender]

But your point is taken. There are instances when an uncaring, fully selfish behavior will be beneficial for the person. So what?

So what argument can you make that someone should not behave that way if it was to his benefit to do so?

The rules of golf are part of the moral code.

As of course are rules against murder part of another moral code, but how do we know that breaking a rule in one code is worse than breaking a different rule in a different code? How, for example, can we say that murder is worse than kicking your ball out of the rough to improve your lie?

Ender

 

[PRmerger]

So what? There was no society ever which would have “declared” that it is wrong to stuff 47 tennis balls into your own toilet bowl.

Well, there you go.

This is another universal no-no.

It does seem that your comment about there being no such thing as “a ‘moral rule’ that has been univocally condemned” has been summarily proven to be false.

Now we have one more to add to our list:

• to take someone else’s wife/woman
• to treat others with injustice
• to stuff 47 tennis balls into one’s toilet bowl.

Of course, I am being coy here.

But the point remains that there is a law which is written in our hearts, as the inspired writer proclaims, that all who search will be consonant with.

Courage, compassion, wisdom have been valued in all societies from the beginning of time. (Now, 'tis true that in different societies/eras some virtues may be emphasized over the other, but there has never been a society that values cowardice or stupidity.)

That is not what I said. There were some societies which had** no concept of justice,** which had no concept of ownership

This is, again, categorically untrue. **All **societies have a concept of justice. :yup:

Now, your run-on sentence makes it unclear as to what you’re saying about “no concept of ownership.” If you are claiming that there are societies that have “no concept of ownership”, perhaps this is true.

At any rate, I think the concept of “it is wrong to take away something that belongs to me” is inherent in all human beings. Just give a 6 year old a piece of candy, and then take it away and see what happens. In all societies. All throughout history. Same thing. Same behavior. It’s a natural sense of injustice that all of us have.