L
Leela
Guest
The same we we already do establish social consensus, we try to convince others of our points of view by telling our stories and then we govern through the democratic process.
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
How do you know your thoughts are a chemical process? How do you know the whole of reality is restricted to the physical universe?
T
tonyrey
Guest
“stories” is the operative word. It implies that right and wrong are fictions.
Is the democratic process an infallible guide to what is right and wrong?
T
tonyrey
Guest
In that case morality is no more than expediency. It is not a categorical imperative. It has no binding force. We can do what we like, provided we don’t get caught.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Regarding your thoughts being chemical… watch this, it is a wonderful speech by a neurologist:
ted.com/index.php/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind.html
L
liquidpele
Guest
Not really. Besides, we all have morality partially encoded in our DNA so abandoning all at once it is really not an option. Enough people just doing what you like will then cause your society to fail and thus other moral societies will live on and prosper for the same reasons that morality arose in the first place. People already do try to game the system though, just take a look at our prison system. Claiming we could all just do what we like is claiming that there are no consequences, which is not what I was implying.In that case morality is no more than expediency. It is not a categorical imperative. It has no binding force. We can do what we like, provided we don’t get caught.
L
Leela
Guest
Stories don’t have to be regarded as fact or fiction to be persuasive. We can be influenced by the story of Jesus whether or not it is historical fact, for example.“stories” is the operative word. It implies that right and wrong are fictions.
Is the democratic process an infallible guide to what is right and wrong?
The democratic is not an infallible guide to anything. It is just the answer to the question about how we function in the absence of any universally agreed upon infallible guide.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Leela
The democratic is not an infallible guide to anything. It is just the answer to the question about how we function in the absence of any universally agreed upon infallible guide.
That’s interesting. So we look at morality as the result of polls? If, say, 60% of the population are in favor of infanticide, that would make it morally acceptable and binding on the other 40%?
If 60% of the population are for euthanasia of the aged and infirm, that would make it morally acceptable and binding on the other 40%?
By your criteria, the public or their legislative, judicial, and executive branch representatives would have to vote on every single issue to decide on moral resolutions that would be binding for all?
So, in other words, you might have two totally binding resolutions that contradict each other, but you would be satisfied with the contradiction because it was arrived at by majority opinion, rather than a consistent logical point of view.
Example: we have to criteria for whether the unborn are human. Abortions are allowed by law. The killing of a woman who is carrying a child results in the killer being charged with double homicide.
In Christian morality both acts are immoral and criminal. Only in a democracy would you find such a schizoid standard of right and wrong.
And your defense would be that “The democratic is not an infallible guide to anything”?
The democratic is not an infallible guide to anything. It is just the answer to the question about how we function in the absence of any universally agreed upon infallible guide.
That’s interesting. So we look at morality as the result of polls? If, say, 60% of the population are in favor of infanticide, that would make it morally acceptable and binding on the other 40%?
If 60% of the population are for euthanasia of the aged and infirm, that would make it morally acceptable and binding on the other 40%?
By your criteria, the public or their legislative, judicial, and executive branch representatives would have to vote on every single issue to decide on moral resolutions that would be binding for all?
So, in other words, you might have two totally binding resolutions that contradict each other, but you would be satisfied with the contradiction because it was arrived at by majority opinion, rather than a consistent logical point of view.
Example: we have to criteria for whether the unborn are human. Abortions are allowed by law. The killing of a woman who is carrying a child results in the killer being charged with double homicide.
In Christian morality both acts are immoral and criminal. Only in a democracy would you find such a schizoid standard of right and wrong.
And your defense would be that “The democratic is not an infallible guide to anything”?
L
Leela
Guest
Majority opinion doesn’t make right. Part of democracy is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Infanticide is not required by anyone. Neither is euthanasia. You are free to choose not to do these things.
You seem to be dissatified with democracy. Can you recommend a better solution to how we can live well together without a universally agreed upon moral authority?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Leela
You seem to be dissatified with democracy.
This is not an attack on democracy so much as an attack on the notion that morality should be settled by popular vote.
*Can you recommend a better solution to how we can live well together without a universally agreed upon moral authority? *
Since I am a Catholic, I guess you already know that … God’s commands.
But since you have abolished religion, you need to be the one who comes up with a plan for establishing consensus of morality, not I. If you’re going to say that the minority view must be protected, then we are back to square 1. Everyone decides for himself what is right or wrong? How can we have laws that are respected and obeyed with that mentality? It is a recipe for mad moral anarchy … which is where we are headed at present.
You seem to be dissatified with democracy.
This is not an attack on democracy so much as an attack on the notion that morality should be settled by popular vote.
*Can you recommend a better solution to how we can live well together without a universally agreed upon moral authority? *
Since I am a Catholic, I guess you already know that … God’s commands.
But since you have abolished religion, you need to be the one who comes up with a plan for establishing consensus of morality, not I. If you’re going to say that the minority view must be protected, then we are back to square 1. Everyone decides for himself what is right or wrong? How can we have laws that are respected and obeyed with that mentality? It is a recipe for mad moral anarchy … which is where we are headed at present.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Since the brain is an instrument it will produce poor results if it is faulty. No one attributes responsibility to a person who has a serious brain disorder. So, according to you, responsibility must be attributed to a brain functioning normally. The problem is that in different persons normal brains make different intellectual and moral choices. So truth and morality are relative to the brain which produces them. In other words they are the result of physical events and have no more significance than fantasies. Responsibility, good and evil cease to exist…
L
Leela
Guest
Morality is not settled by popular vote. What is right is right whether or not anyone thinks so. But saying that doesn’t give us any information about how to figure out what is right or convince others what is right. In a democracy, everyone who has a perspective on what they think is moral gets to have their say through the power of the vote. I agree that this is a less than ideal situation, but the alternative is not divine rule since God is not here to rule on earth. The alternative is a few people who think they speak for God ruling over everyone else as in the Taliban.
I haven’t abolished religion. Religion exists and democracy is how we have learned to live together despite our different views on morality.
You might be able to get broad agreement that we should live by God’s commands. But so what? You won’t get much agreement at all about what those commands are, so this is not a problem for atheists, this is the world we all live in.
L
liquidpele
Guest
You are correct, truth and morality are relative to the person. However, the majority of people are not brain damaged, and mostly agree on what morality is (because as I pointed out earlier, it is built into our social structures). Leela gives a good example about how we then specifically define the ins and outs of morality for a group: democracy.
The fact that sociopaths exist does not negate that the rest of humanity has an urge to be moral and work together to build a stable society.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Leela
You won’t get much agreement at all about what those commands are, so this is not a problem for atheists, this is the world we all live in.
Yes, and a progressively barbarian world. Though you are probably too young to know that.
Fifty years ago there was no drug use among children; no children slaughtering other children in in the classroom and schoolyard; no mass holocaust of the unborn by the millions every year; no insane cry for homosexual marriage; no collapse of standards in education, the arts, and entertainment. Etc., etc.
And does anyone wonder why? Because Christianity rules? Or because of something much worse than the Taliban?
You won’t get much agreement at all about what those commands are, so this is not a problem for atheists, this is the world we all live in.
Yes, and a progressively barbarian world. Though you are probably too young to know that.
Fifty years ago there was no drug use among children; no children slaughtering other children in in the classroom and schoolyard; no mass holocaust of the unborn by the millions every year; no insane cry for homosexual marriage; no collapse of standards in education, the arts, and entertainment. Etc., etc.
And does anyone wonder why? Because Christianity rules? Or because of something much worse than the Taliban?
H
HelenaMT
Guest
How do you arrive at that conclusion if you also believe that there is no way to conclusively decide on one set of moral standards? Why would what’s right be right whether or not anyone thinks so if there is no way to determine “true” right in the first place?
T
tonyrey
Guest
If truth is relative to every person, i.e. the result of personal decisions, how can there be universal truths? If there are no universal truths how do you explain the laws of nature?
If truth and morality stem from urges how can human beings be regarded as responsible for what they believe and how they act? If all our behaviour has physical causes all our beliefs have physical causes and there is no guarantee that any particular belief corresponds to reality. Your belief that all beliefs have physical causes is therefore questionable to say the least.
Instincts fall into the same category and we know how fallible they are!
S
severntofall
Guest
How is that any different that your opinions about morality. The only manner in which your belief system differs is your belief that there’s an invisible man in the sky recording all of your actions who will send you to hell if you displease him.In that case morality is no more than expediency. It is not a categorical imperative. It has no binding force. We can do what we like, provided we don’t get caught.
S
severntofall
Guest
Either something is evil because we say it is or because god says it is, either is subjective to the will of the originator. The best morality would be one that came from those who personally stand to gain and lose as a result of its enforcement; as it will most likely be the best reflection of the desires of those whose behavior it serves to modify. Again, even if morality is objectively based (rape is wrong because rape is wrong) it would still be dependent upon us to figure this out. We would still be operating under an assumption that we know what is moral and immoral whether it was true or not. I will say this: convincing a person that they should obey your commands or they will burn in hell forever means that they will probably do what you ask. Unfortunately, what they are asked to do is where the trouble usually starts.If truth is relative to every person, i.e. the result of personal decisions, how can there be universal truths? If there are no universal truths how do you explain the laws of nature?
If truth and morality stem from urges how can human beings be regarded as responsible for what they believe and how they act? If all our behaviour has physical causes all our beliefs have physical causes and there is no guarantee that any particular belief corresponds to reality. Your belief that all beliefs have physical causes is therefore questionable to say the least.
In your view, morality is nothing more than doing what one is told. Now, if your god actually does exist, then we’d be wise to please him or otherwise we’ll suffer the eternal pains of hell, but this not mean that his moral decrees exist to serve anyone but himself.
You seem concearned that without a god to define right and wrong, then morality is subjective…so what? Maybe that’s just the way it is. Reality is not based upon your desire for their to exist an objective morality.
Again read my post regarding morality for a better understanding:
agnosticsalvation.blogspot.com/2009/03/origins-of-morality.html
agnosticsalvation.blogspot.com/2009/03/sayest-christian.html
T
tonyrey
Guest
A total distortion of what Christians believe! God is not a man, He is not in the sky, He is not recording our actions and He does not send anyone to hell. God is the Creator of all things in heaven and on earth who in His infinite love has shared His freedom with us so that we can choose to love ourselves or Him. If we live for ourselves we alienate others and live in a hell of our own making. We do not love Him unless we love our neighbour. Love is not expediency. It does not seek any reward. It is its own reward but that is not its motive. It is a free gift of oneself which does not count the cost!
S
severntofall
Guest
I was relying in some parts on allegory. None-the-less, the modern concept of hell is very much at odds with the theology that exists for nerely 2000 years in which hell is a physical location (an eternaly lake of fire where the worms never die) and the damned are sent there as punishment. Read your encylopedia for a better description:
newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
- Status