Is There Any Reason Why Its Important That Humans Dont Die Out?

[Outinleftfield]

I mean as a consequence of not reproducing. This issue is often raised when talking about abortion or homosexuality, but what harm would be done if everyone stopped having babies? Sure the human race would cease to exist but who would be harmed? You can't reasonably speak of future generations being harmed, unless we have a moral duty to reproduce like rabbits to make sure all the potential human beings get born. If we don't reproduce then those people never exist to be harmed in the first place. If society kept functioning and people just went about their lives I see no reason everyone couldn't live happy until the end. If anyone was harmed it would be because of panic like in Children of Men.

Of course this scenario would never happen because if I knew everyone else on the planet was doing this unless there was some woman who wasn't refusing to ever have kids I'd get to work inventing the artificial womb, get a donor egg, put it with my sperm, and take advantage of being remembered for ever as the first real life Adam, and getting the chance to make the new society the way I want it. There are probably other people who would jump on this opportunity too so this wouldn't happen, but if it did there's nothing really that bad about it.

[Luís Henrique]

If society kept functioning and people just went about their lives I see no reason everyone couldn't live happy until the end.
I guess people wouldn't die all at the same time, which would imply that those dying later would suffer a lot.

We don't do that because we don't want to. Would you suggest a wide campaign against reproduction?

Might I say, at some time the campaigners would have died, and the sane people surviving would start to reproduce again.

Luís Henrique

[yuon]

There is, of course, no reason to regret the extinction of the human race in the manner you suggest. There is no god, and the universe does not, can not, care.

So, if all the humans died out, no human would be alive to mourn. (And, at the moment, there are no other animals that we know of intelligent enough to mourn either.) Indeed, it might be better for the earth/other species if there were no humans. Humans are known to make extinct other species at a rate far faster than "normal".

[rebelmouse]

many people who like to have childen would be harmed/hurted if they stop to reproduce. you forgot that many people don't make philosophy than they live practical life and children are very important in their life. especially in different cultures than West (west run for career and money, so less and less people make children).
btw, from the standpoint of nature, the sense of reproduction is bringing of changes in this world. if only one generation exist long time, there would be frozen development in this planet. new babies = new conflict with old way of thinking and creating of different world = new rebels, etc.

[ZeroNowhere]

btw, from the standpoint of nature, the sense of reproduction is bringing of changes in this world.I'm not entirely sure what the hell that means. Are you saying that from somebody named Nature's standpoint, the point of reproduction is to allow for new generations who can bring changes in human society? Because that would be pretty interesting, I don't know of anybody else who reproduces for that reason.


Humans are known to make extinct other species at a rate far faster than "normal".Humans are also known to make heavy metal.

Anyhow, why is it important... To whom? It wouldn't be especially nice for changes made by you and your generation to be pretty much wiped out, no more heavy metal, and nobody to listen to 'Ample Destruction', because it would pretty much suck for all human relationships, hopes, dreams and such to be destroyed, etc. Of course, we would be too dead to care by then. But in that case, I'd have to reiterate, to whom?

[emmagoldmanchai]

It seems to be simply against our biology to allow the destruction of the entire species. In the 20th century, when genocides were rather common and suicide rates increased, the threat of of human extinction kept nuclear war from occuring.

Marxist thought seems to take for granted that continued human existence and prosperity is a desired end.

[Outinleftfield]

I guess people wouldn't die all at the same time, which would imply that those dying later would suffer a lot.

We don't do that because we don't want to. Would you suggest a wide campaign against reproduction?

Might I say, at some time the campaigners would have died, and the sane people surviving would start to reproduce again.

Luís Henrique

I never said anything about a campaign, just that if people naturally decided not to have any babies(purely hypothetical) or if some disaster made everyone sterile like in Children of Men (again purely hypothetical) as long as people didn't panic like they might in the latter case there's no reason there'd be any problems.

As for the last people I could see how there could be problems, though that depends on their health and how they die in the end. I'd think society would have at least prepared some machines maybe even robots to help them.


many people who like to have childen would be harmed/hurted if they stop to reproduce. you forgot that many people don't make philosophy than they live practical life and children are very important in their life. especially in different cultures than West (west run for career and money, so less and less people make children).
btw, from the standpoint of nature, the sense of reproduction is bringing of changes in this world. if only one generation exist long time, there would be frozen development in this planet. new babies = new conflict with old way of thinking and creating of different world = new rebels, etc.

Just like sterile people now often are dismayed at their inability to reproduce. Still don't see how it would be any worse for people in this hypothetical scenario other than psychological pain faced by people who fear a future without humans in spite of the fact that they won't be there either to feel one way or another about it when it happens. As for the development of the world what is good about that except in our own mind? What's good or bad about anything except in our own minds? and without human minds no one will care about it. There wouldn't be an old way of thinking or new, there wouldn't be any way of thinking.

[spiltteeth]

Yes, I love people. They are important to me.

[TC]

The only reason why its important, in fact, the only reason why anything is important, is because its important to some people on a purely subjective level.

If you want to reproduce because you think doing so would make you happy, then its important to you. If you don't want to reproduce because you think on the balance it would make you less happy, then don't do it.

What you shouldn't do however is hold out your own subjective valuations as universial, as if nature was a replacement for god that justified you doing the things you want to do. There is no 'natural' human condition, we are inherently deliberative and social creatures who make decisions for ourselves rather than working off of instinct. Even if there was such a thing as 'the natural' it would have no normative value so appealing to it for guidance as to what should happen is nonsense.

[MarxSchmarx]

Of course, there is no more "objective, absolute" reason why humans sould die out.

But there are plenty of reasons why, personally, I do not want to see this happen. Even after I die.

I do not want a future where the light of science is extinguished. I do not want a future where Beethoven is no longer heard, where Basho is no longer read. I do not want a future where children cannot climb on the statues of Miro.

Worse, a world where artistic creativity no longer exists and grinds a bitter halt seems so undesirable on so many levels. It is my fervent hope that these things outlive me for as long as possible. If humans die out, then all that is lost. I don't want that, and therefore working to prevent whilst I am alive is worthwhile.

[Manifesto]

If we do not like it when a species dies out why would we allow or want ours to?

Also wouldn't the human species (or some other thing entirely) eventually evolve again, I have heard this theory before.

[MarxSchmarx]

Also wouldn't the human species (or some other thing entirely) eventually evolve again, I have heard this theory before.

The earth has been around for 5~6 billion years, and consciousness evolved but once. That means it would be a very, very long time before it happens again.

[Outinleftfield]

The earth has been around for 5~6 billion years, and consciousness evolved but once. That means it would be a very, very long time before it happens again.

This is getting off topic but how do we know this for sure? Had a sentient race evolved before would it have left any evidence necessarily? The troodons came close to evolving a brain mass necessary for sentience. If they had evolved to that its possible it could've died out before it invented anything or did anything that would've left a permanent impact and if it was around for a short time that would explain why we haven't found any skeletons.

[MarxSchmarx]

This is getting off topic but how do we know this for sure? Had a sentient race evolved before would it have left any evidence necessarily? The troodons came close to evolving a brain mass necessary for sentience. If they had evolved to that its possible it could've died out before it invented anything or did anything that would've left a permanent impact and if it was around for a short time that would explain why we haven't found any skeletons.

Since you ask, I think the enormous success, evolutionarily at least, of humans and their strong effects on the world are attributable to sentience. Thus it would seem that any similarly sentient group of organisms (and not just a few brilliant mutants here and there) should have been able to leave at least a few cave paintings.

[hefty_lefty]

Our exploding population will have us considering this topic very seriously soon enough.
As I see it, we will be faced with an ultimatum; find a population control solution, or eat ourselves into extinction. There will come a point where our numbers will just not be sustainable, and after we scrape every inch of the earth for our temporary survival we will wither and die, and have taken the entire earth with us.

We don't want to die, it is against our instinct it is against any living creatures instinct. As a man with some self-loathing I cannot say that our lives are worth more than another creatures.
Is our struggle any more noble than theirs?

It is becoming real now, our presence has unbalanced our world, and we must find it again, through any means.
And as a tenacious species, we will find a soultion, and it wont be pretty.

[Hit The North]

Our exploding population will have us considering this topic very seriously soon enough.
As I see it, we will be faced with an ultimatum; find a population control solution, or eat ourselves into extinction. There will come a point where our numbers will just not be sustainable, and after we scrape every inch of the earth for our temporary survival we will wither and die, and have taken the entire earth with us.



I think the consensus among demographers is that human population growth will peak around 2050 and then go into decline.



It is becoming real now, our presence has unbalanced our world, and we must find it again, through any means.
And as a tenacious species, we will find a soultion, and it wont be pretty.


This supposes that the Earth's eco-system is normally in a state of equalibrium, which is not true. There have been at least three other periods of mass extinction millions of years before human beings evolved.

[hefty_lefty]

Predictions are not something I am willing to bet on Bob.
We can barely predict the weather, or even our own economy, how are we to predict how people will reproduce in 40 years from now?

I am tired of predictions, most of which are aimed at lessening the severity of our current situation and persuading us that no great action is needed at this time.

The 'cross that bridge when we get there' mentality is a dooming one, we will arrive there and find that there is no longer a bridge to cross.

Mass extinction, yeah, our fate may be that of the dinosaur...to be replaced by the meek which will grow strong on the carcasses of our civilization.

Heh, perhaps a bit dramatic, but the message must be dire in order to spark interest in action.
Do you not agree?

[TC]

The earth has been around for 5~6 billion years, and consciousness evolved but once. That means it would be a very, very long time before it happens again.

Thats just ridiculous, most animals are conscious/sentient and they show abundant and constant and obvious evidence for this.

Perhaps you mean deliberative and linguistically ordered thought has only evolved once, which is debatable, but not obviously untrue.

[Manifesto]

Predictions are not something I am willing to bet on Bob.
We can barely predict the weather, or even our own economy, how are we to predict how people will reproduce in 40 years from now?


I don't know about that due to birth control etc. but seeing a family with 5+ is not a common sight nowadays so yeah there will more than likely be a population drop.

[hefty_lefty]

Ok, you are right, 1 to 2 kids seems to be the trend, though rising sterility and it's fertility drug soultion is making multiple baby births not so uncommon.
Still, this is a weak argument.
So, do you guys think the population in 2050 will be sustainable?
And if so, at what cost from now until then?

[Outinleftfield]

Since you ask, I think the enormous success, evolutionarily at least, of humans and their strong effects on the world are attributable to sentience. Thus it would seem that any similarly sentient group of organisms (and not just a few brilliant mutants here and there) should have been able to leave at least a few cave paintings.

65 millions years would destroy most if not all cave paintings or alternatively(and this would be destroyed even faster) tree bark markings(as they might not have ever used caves as living space). At that stage the only thing they'd leave behind are fossils and those are hard to find especially if it existed for a short time only so not finding it yet doesn't prove it didn't happen.

[Outinleftfield]

Our exploding population will have us considering this topic very seriously soon enough.
As I see it, we will be faced with an ultimatum; find a population control solution, or eat ourselves into extinction. There will come a point where our numbers will just not be sustainable, and after we scrape every inch of the earth for our temporary survival we will wither and die, and have taken the entire earth with us.

We don't want to die, it is against our instinct it is against any living creatures instinct. As a man with some self-loathing I cannot say that our lives are worth more than another creatures.
Is our struggle any more noble than theirs?

It is becoming real now, our presence has unbalanced our world, and we must find it again, through any means.
And as a tenacious species, we will find a soultion, and it wont be pretty.

Overpopulation is a bourgeois myth used to justify starvation in third world countries.

We have the ability to feed everybody in the world and then some, but a small part of the world owns the majority of wealth and that makes it harder for the poorest people to affoard food.

"It's overpopulation" sounds more comforting than "we have the means to feed all those people but we don't because all we care about is making a profit."

When there's socialism we will move society to create abundance and nobody will have to worry about starvation or anything. Everything will be plentiful.

[yuon]

The earth has been around for 5~6 billion years, and consciousness evolved but once. That means it would be a very, very long time before it happens again.


Since you ask, I think the enormous success, evolutionarily at least, of humans and their strong effects on the world are attributable to sentience. Thus it would seem that any similarly sentient group of organisms (and not just a few brilliant mutants here and there) should have been able to leave at least a few cave paintings.


65 millions years would destroy most if not all cave paintings or alternatively(and this would be destroyed even faster) tree bark markings(as they might not have ever used caves as living space). At that stage the only thing they'd leave behind are fossils and those are hard to find especially if it existed for a short time only so not finding it yet doesn't prove it didn't happen.
MarxSchmarx, I suggest you go and read The Science of the Discworld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Discworld). Among other things, it looks at the sort of issues that Outinleftfield raises here.

[spiltteeth]

In Barrow and Tippler's book they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which is absurdly improbable (in my opinion) if left to happen by chance alone. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power.
So, I think humans are here for a reason, and are precious.

Of course, without objective morals, which requires a transcendent reference point, then it doesn't matter at all if the planet dies.

However, I have never seen anyone have a logically consistent belief system without in some way referring to a 'supernatural' source.

[hefty_lefty]

Outinleftfield, what you say makes sense except the coombayah ending.
Right now, wether the food is used for profit or fair circulation, our populations influence on the earths eco-systems is negative and un-sustainable if we are to enjoy it's beauty in the future.

I know this is not an environmental rights forum, but socialism is about an evolved society and it must acknowledge all it's moral responsibilities as such a race.

[Hit The North]

Of course, without objective morals, which requires a transcendent reference point, then it doesn't matter at all if the planet dies.



It depends who it matters to. It matters to me for my own existence and the existence of my children (to name only a few of the countless interested parties). Without objective morals (whatever they are supposed to be!) and a transcendent reference point, it may not matter to some transcendent agent (like this god you believe in); but it doesn't follow that the death of the planet doesn't matter at all.


However, I have never seen anyone have a logically consistent belief system without in some way referring to a 'supernatural' source. Then you should get out more. Historical materialism or evolution, as far as they represent a belief system, do not require a 'supernatural' source.

[spiltteeth]

It depends who it matters to. It matters to me for my own existence and the existence of my children (to name only a few of the countless interested parties). Without objective morals (whatever they are supposed to be!) and a transcendent reference point, it may not matter to some transcendent agent (like this god you believe in); but it doesn't follow that the death of the planet doesn't matter at all.

Then you should get out more. Historical materialism or evolution, as far as they represent a belief system, do not require a 'supernatural' source.

Well then, as long as your loved ones will be safe, then it doesn't matter if the rest of the world dies out. Also, if your kids don't have kids, and yr family dies out, at that point it will not matter if the planet dies out.
Also, once you die it will not matter, since, dead, you will not be able to care what happens to your children, so at that point it will not matter if the world dies out.

I've never met, nor heard of, anyone who lived by historical materialism or evolution in a logically consistent manner.
I'm reminded of Bertrand Russell, who fought for social causes, but said he found the fact that he believed in his morals to be "fantastic" and was surprised by them, also he admitted he couldn't find any reason to be committed to them.
Francis Shaffer uses the metaphor as if there were 2 stories in a house, and atheists/materialists just randomly jump to the top one to grab metaphysical justifications for which there beliefs provide no support.

[Hit The North]

Well then, as long as your loved ones will be safe, then it doesn't matter if the rest of the world dies out. My loved ones can hardly be safe if the rest of the world dies out.



Also, once you die it will not matter, since, dead, you will not be able to care what happens to your children, so at that point it will not matter if the world dies out.

It will matter to whomever is left.



I've never met, nor heard of, anyone who lived by historical materialism or evolution in a logically consistent manner.

What does it mean to live in "a logically consistent manner"?

[Dr Mindbender]

I mean as a consequence of not reproducing. This issue is often raised when talking about abortion or homosexuality, but what harm would be done if everyone stopped having babies? Sure the human race would cease to exist but who would be harmed? You can't reasonably speak of future generations being harmed, unless we have a moral duty to reproduce like rabbits to make sure all the potential human beings get born. If we don't reproduce then those people never exist to be harmed in the first place. If society kept functioning and people just went about their lives I see no reason everyone couldn't live happy until the end. If anyone was harmed it would be because of panic like in Children of Men.

Of course this scenario would never happen because if I knew everyone else on the planet was doing this unless there was some woman who wasn't refusing to ever have kids I'd get to work inventing the artificial womb, get a donor egg, put it with my sperm, and take advantage of being remembered for ever as the first real life Adam, and getting the chance to make the new society the way I want it. There are probably other people who would jump on this opportunity too so this wouldn't happen, but if it did there's nothing really that bad about it.

If anyone actually subscribes to this philosophy, then they dont belong on this forum tbf.

[spiltteeth]

Bob The Builder;1570261]My loved ones can hardly be safe if the rest of the world dies out.

So, as long as a minimum of people survive to keep your loved ones safe, then it doesn't matter that the rest die off.


It will matter to whomever is left.

Why would that matter to you? And it matters to a millions of rich folk that capitalism keeps on keeping on. This doesn't matter to me, I still want them out, even if I become rich and its in mine and my children's best interest to keep capitalism going.
Cheney says it matters to him that 'americans' live in comfort, so we invade other countries to get their resources. He puts his class interests above everyone else's, as a personal preference.


What does it mean to live in "a logically consistent manner"?

I'm just saying, for example, I can say Pol Pot's regime was evil, and wrong, as well as provide a cool historical analysis, because I believe in absolute evil and good, my reference point is God etc, thats all.

Like I say, Bertrand Russell, could not live consistently, he said he believed one thing, then acted in another way, as if the morals he didn't believe in actually objectively existed, which is why he said he found his actions 'fantastic' and couldn't justify them. It disturbed him.

[hefty_lefty]

Even science falls apart at a certain point, the creation of the universe and the "recipe" of initial life being prime examples.
Supernatural is an incorrect term, the truth is natural, even if it seems 'fantastic'.

As far as caring for humans, it's important to try to better the situation for the ones deserving of a better life up until the very point that you die.
What happens after is rather irrelevant, but life goes on without you, and if any of us do make a difference, then it is important that our efforts are not lost.

It is best to think that you can observe the world after you die, that way you will care more for what you do and for what you may set into motion during the short time you are here.

Self sacrifice is the basis of a revolutionary.

[Hit The North]

So, as long as a minimum of people survive to keep your loved ones safe, then it doesn't matter that the rest die off.


Why would you assume that?


Why would that matter to you? And it matters to a millions of rich folk that capitalism keeps on keeping on. This doesn't matter to me, I still want them out, even if I become rich and its in mine and my children's best interest to keep capitalism going.Well, you're the one who seems to be making the claim that something only matters if it matters to God. My claim was that if something matters relative to an interested party, then it matters to them. This doesn't have to be a universal claim.

In fact, given that there is no God, no transcendental point of view, we can only talk of things having significance or value to particular observers.

[spiltteeth]

Bob The Builder;1570576]Why would you assume that?

It vibes with your claim was that if

something matters relative to an interested party, then it matters to them. This doesn't have to be a universal claim.

I can imagine scenarios where your and your family's vested interests are not effected by most people dying off.


Well, you're the one who seems to be making the claim that something only matters if it matters to God. My claim was that if something matters relative to an interested party, then it matters to them. This doesn't have to be a universal claim.

I hear you. I agree. It's just that I can say its immoral for someone to use child labor, even if they profit from it.


In fact, given that there is no God, no transcendental point of view, we can only talk of things having significance or value to particular observers.


I'm pretty sure there's a God, at least I believe in Him, so I can talk about those things, that's all I'm saying.
Even if a scenario occurred where it'd be in my best interest to enslave humanity, I can logically refuse it, since I believe in God etc.

[mel]

It vibes with your claim was that if


I can imagine scenarios where your and your family's vested interests are not effected by most people dying off.



I hear you. I agree. It's just that I can say its immoral for someone to use child labor, even if they profit from it.



I'm pretty sure there's a God, at least I believe in Him, so I can talk about those things, that's all I'm saying.
Even if a scenario occurred where it'd be in my best interest to enslave humanity, I can logically refuse it, since I believe in God etc.

I can say it's immoral for someone to use child labor even if they profit from it, I don't need god for that. If it's in my best interest to do something, that doesn't make it right. You can apply moral standards

In any case, this discussion about meaningfulness is really only tangentially related to the discussions about morality that have been going on in this thread. Where meaning is necessarily subjective, and what's important has to be in the context of an "important to whom", the same does not necessarily apply to morality. Morality is socially determined and culturally relative, and even your appeals to God as an objective standard are suspect since those values which have been "passed down by god" are reinterpreted in society's image whenever they no longer fit, but even setting that aside, it doesn't follow from social relativism that simply "anything goes".

Ultimately, it is my belief that humans moral instincts have served them relatively well up to now. The problem is that these moral values which people have are not well expressed in to societies that we create (largely due to the complex layers of social interaction which make fashioning a society truly in everyones best interests difficult, and partially because we can't simply form a world committee and decide on the best sort of social structure). These values may be innate, or may be entirely socially constructed, or a combination of both, but ultimately, overall, I'd believe we can trust them. The key is to find the best expression of these values.

I'm still developing my ethical theory, so it's chock full of holes now, but suffice it to say that I do believe that embracing ethical relativism without "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" so to speak, by tossing out all of the moral values which we've developed throughout human history, is possible.

[spiltteeth]

I can say it's immoral for someone to use child labor even if they profit from it, I don't need god for that. If it's in my best interest to do something, that doesn't make it right. You can apply moral standards

In any case, this discussion about meaningfulness is really only tangentially related to the discussions about morality that have been going on in this thread. Where meaning is necessarily subjective, and what's important has to be in the context of an "important to whom", the same does not necessarily apply to morality. Morality is socially determined and culturally relative, and even your appeals to God as an objective standard are suspect since those values which have been "passed down by god" are reinterpreted in society's image whenever they no longer fit, but even setting that aside, it doesn't follow from social relativism that simply "anything goes".

Ultimately, it is my belief that humans moral instincts have served them relatively well up to now. The problem is that these moral values which people have are not well expressed in to societies that we create (largely due to the complex layers of social interaction which make fashioning a society truly in everyones best interests difficult, and partially because we can't simply form a world committee and decide on the best sort of social structure). These values may be innate, or may be entirely socially constructed, or a combination of both, but ultimately, overall, I'd believe we can trust them. The key is to find the best expression of these values.

I'm still developing my ethical theory, so it's chock full of holes now, but suffice it to say that I do believe that embracing ethical relativism without "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" so to speak, by tossing out all of the moral values which we've developed throughout human history, is possible.

I actually have never heard this before. How can you justify saying that it's immoral for someone to use child labor even if they profit from it? If it's socially and/or culturally determined than it's only 'wrong' in a specific society/culture and could be morally fine in another.

Unless yr saying the random biochemical processes of evolution and chance are your authority for what's right or wrong, in which case there is no reason to go by them now, since circumstances are now different. Moral instincts that by chance served well in the past may be inappropriate for today.

Also, I belong to the Orhodox church, which has been around for 2000 yrs in monarchies, democracies, "Communist" societies etc and has consistently maintained the same core morals.

[mel]

I actually have never heard this before. How can you justify saying that it's immoral for someone to use child labor even if they profit from it? If it's socially and/or culturally determined than it's only 'wrong' in a specific society/culture and could be morally fine in another.

Unless yr saying the random biochemical processes of evolution and chance are your authority for what's right or wrong, in which case there is no reason to go by them now, since circumstances are now different.

I'm saying that despite some social and cultural relativism, there are some near-universal core values which by and large people do hold, and can trust to be "morally correct" so to speak. Societies by and large today, however, do not express those values well which leads to moral frustration and confusion.

This position may never be reconcilable, it is a complex idea I've never been able to fully explain or work the holes out of, but I've only been trying for several months. I don't see relativism as escapable, but I don't see that we ought to discard all of the values societies have formed thus far, while discarding the societies themselves because they can never express those values.

The moral precepts that you have found delivered from God have changed numerous times, often to reflect your society, so your position is at least as mired in relativism as mine. I'd like to think that it's more coherent to simply embrace that relativism and build off of the foundation that thousands of years of human history has built than to claim objectivity where none can be found, even if that means working through some gaping holes along the way.

[spiltteeth]

I'm saying that despite some social and cultural relativism, there are some near-universal core values which by and large people do hold, and can trust to be "morally correct" so to speak. Societies by and large today, however, do not express those values well which leads to moral frustration and confusion.

This position may never be reconcilable, it is a complex idea I've never been able to fully explain or work the holes out of, but I've only been trying for several months. I don't see relativism as escapable, but I don't see that we ought to discard all of the values societies have formed thus far, while discarding the societies themselves because they can never express those values.

The moral precepts that you have found delivered from God have changed numerous times, often to reflect your society, so your position is at least as mired in relativism as mine. I'd like to think that it's more coherent to simply embrace that relativism and build off of the foundation that thousands of years of human history has built than to claim objectivity where none can be found, even if that means working through some gaping holes along the way.

The moral precepts have been, in some societies, understood better, according to the bible it's a gradual revelation. However I'm unaware of any changes in the Orthodox church in the last 2000 yrs, despite different circumstances and societies, so I can't see your view as tenable.

It's interesting. What are the universal values? The thing is, if you narrow them down to like 3 things (it is always immoral to eat a live baby etc) they become pretty meaningless as far as guides go.

But specifically, how do you justify your belief that it's immoral for someone to use child labor even if they profit from it?

[mel]

The moral precepts have been, in some societies, understood better, according to the bible it's a gradual revelation. However I'm unaware of any changes in the Orthodox church in the last 2000 yrs, despite different circumstances and societies, so I can't see your view as tenable.

The orthdox church may not officially have changed its beliefs, perhaps you're right about that, I know relatively little about its history. I also know that in its history its' been party to some ugly things, and as far as I know, has an official position against abortion (which may have changed, but either way you either differ from the church in this respect in which case they cannot be your objective moral authority, are yourself against abortion, or your position that their beliefs have not changed is untenable)


It's interesting. What are the universal values? The thing is, if you narrow them down to like 3 things (it is always immoral to eat a live baby etc) they become pretty meaningless as far as guides go.

I don't think it's possible to enumerate the universal values, I'm only one person, and I can only take a stab at them. I never claimed that my theory was without its problems. I believe a large number of moral questions can be answered with the value (rarely expressed in the societies, and too often ignored by the individuals, though most profess it) that violence (at least against other humans) is only valid in self-defense. It may be that this value is merely a rhetorical device, but I feel it's one that we may make the claim is at least nearly universal. That being said:


But specifically, how do you justify your belief that it's immoral for someone to use child labor even if they profit from it?

An act of violence is either carried out or implied in the forceful subjugation of the child into the labor force. Since that violence was not carried out in self-defense, it is invalid use of force and therefore immoral.

This is a drastic oversimplification of my position, but I think it holds water as is.

[spiltteeth]

The orthdox church may not officially have changed its beliefs, perhaps you're right about that, I know relatively little about its history. I also know that in its history its' been party to some ugly things, and as far as I know, has an official position against abortion (which may have changed, but either way you either differ from the church in this respect in which case they cannot be your objective moral authority, are yourself against abortion, or your position that their beliefs have not changed is untenable)



I don't think it's possible to enumerate the universal values, I'm only one person, and I can only take a stab at them. I never claimed that my theory was without its problems. I believe a large number of moral questions can be answered with the value (rarely expressed in the societies, and too often ignored by the individuals, though most profess it) that violence (at least against other humans) is only valid in self-defense. It may be that this value is merely a rhetorical device, but I feel it's one that we may make the claim is at least nearly universal. That being said:



An act of violence is either carried out or implied in the forceful subjugation of the child into the labor force. Since that violence was not carried out in self-defense, it is invalid use of force and therefore immoral.

This is a drastic oversimplification of my position, but I think it holds water as is.

Thanks. Very interesting. Of course there's no reason why anyone ought to believe that "violence either carried out or implied" is wrong because you think most people think it's wrong; but, as long as you acknowledge that its an arbitrarily chosen code, there wouldn't be anything logically inconsistent in it (except the reason for the morality itself.)

Although if it's rarely expressed how do you suppose its universal? And also, what makes you think people nearly universally only believe in violence as self-defense? Come to think of it, yr claim seems in bad shape indeed! No offense though, like you said, its in its early stages, so I do appreciate the answer.

[mel]

Thanks. Very interesting. Of course there's no reason why anyone ought to believe that "violence either carried out or implied" is wrong because you think most people think it's wrong; but, as long as you acknowledge that its an arbitrarily chosen code, there wouldn't be anything logically inconsistent in it (except the reason for the morality itself.)

I go into a lot more detail, as well as its implications, in the blog post I just posted, which is a rewrite of one I wrote back in June or July on the same subject.


Although if it's rarely expressed how do you suppose its universal? And also, what makes you think people nearly universally only believe in violence as self-defense? Come to think of it, yr claim seems in bad shape indeed! No offense though, like you said, its in its early stages, so I do appreciate the answer.

It's rarely expressed by societies (societies, for instance, go to war, and capitalism is itself an act of illegitimate, structural class violence). I'd argue that the reason for this is not because people do not hold the value that violence is (if not only legitimate, most legitimate) in self defense, but because it is in the interests of the controlling class to dictate otherwise.

That said, when pressed most people I've approached will claim that violence for violence's sake is always wrong, and that violence is either never valid, or valid only in self defense...with true pacifists being more rare than people in the "middle ground". The exception to that rule being here on revleft, where based on the assumption that revolutionary violence cannot be justified within an ethical system have just discarded the whole of ethics and don't try to legitimize revolution.

I don't know of many people who believe violence for its own sake is legitimate, and again...I do take quite a large leap in making that assumption, and that's the sort of argument I'm attempting to work the kinks out of, as I do believe that there's an argument to be made that there are some nearly-universal values, though how and where they arise is really an historical exercise and not a philosophical one, which makes my job more difficult.

[FreeFocus]

It's important that we don't die out because we have so much to offer ourselves, our planet, and indeed, the galaxy (and possibly universe, if we can get that far). We're not anywhere near what we're capable of becoming.

[spiltteeth]

I go into a lot more detail, as well as its implications, in the blog post I just posted, which is a rewrite of one I wrote back in June or July on the same subject.



It's rarely expressed by societies (societies, for instance, go to war, and capitalism is itself an act of illegitimate, structural class violence). I'd argue that the reason for this is not because people do not hold the value that violence is (if not only legitimate, most legitimate) in self defense, but because it is in the interests of the controlling class to dictate otherwise.

That said, when pressed most people I've approached will claim that violence for violence's sake is always wrong, and that violence is either never valid, or valid only in self defense...with true pacifists being more rare than people in the "middle ground". The exception to that rule being here on revleft, where based on the assumption that revolutionary violence cannot be justified within an ethical system have just discarded the whole of ethics and don't try to legitimize revolution.

I don't know of many people who believe violence for its own sake is legitimate, and again...I do take quite a large leap in making that assumption, and that's the sort of argument I'm attempting to work the kinks out of, as I do believe that there's an argument to be made that there are some nearly-universal values, though how and where they arise is really an historical exercise and not a philosophical one, which makes my job more difficult.

Interesting stuff. Let me know if you finish. Of course, even were you to find possible constant values in past cultures, there's no reason to think they would universal, since future societies could be structured differently.
And it's true many people wouldn't go for violence for its own sake as 'good,' but its quite a leap, perhaps even unjustified, to say violence is then never justified outside of self defense in peoples opinion.
For Christian societies, violence, righteousness, revenge is all bound up; to tell you the truth, all of history seems to contradict your claim.
But, even if it didn't, there would still be no reason to follow it, the best you could say is that in the previous societies, such and such a value existed among most people. No reason to follow such values today, or in tomorrow's society, just because it's historically dictated.
So I guess I'm not sure why your view of child labour is justified, if in your opinion, it is merely historically descriptive, has holes in it, needs a 'leap of faith,' wouldn't necessarily apply to future societies, and isn't finished?
How can you have already taken a stance on child labour then?
Plus then it needs yet another leap to say violence can also describe labour relations. Your definition of violence becomes very abstract, and even there, it is certainly then a fact that a whole class of people believed in that type of violence all throughout history.

[Hit The North]

I think we need to acknowledge that morality can only exist to the extent that it is shared by communities and that, therefore, a particular relativism is built in to morality. It cannot function as a universal yardstick by which we can judge all behaviour, unless we decide to abstract a universal point of reference such as a God.

But given that attempts to universalise morals tend to produce systems of domination, oppression and intolerance, why would we go to the effort of creating these imaginary beings unless we were interested in producing those systems of domination, oppression and intolerance in the first place?

[Mälli]

Yes, I love people. They are important to me.

Thats true. Reality is what you know.

[spiltteeth]

I think we need to acknowledge that morality can only exist to the extent that it is shared by communities and that, therefore, a particular relativism is built in to morality. It cannot function as a universal yardstick by which we can judge all behaviour, unless we decide to abstract a universal point of reference such as a God.

But given that attempts to universalise morals tend to produce systems of domination, oppression and intolerance, why would we go to the effort of creating these imaginary beings unless we were interested in producing those systems of domination, oppression and intolerance in the first place?

Ironically, this is a moral statement, but I guess the reason would be to be able to live rationally. To be able to judge yr own behavior and others.

I remember you got very upset once at people defending Pol Pot, doesn't it bother you that you can't justify a belief that genocide and the holocaust were wrong?

If someone posited a way for revolution that involved a lot of innocent deaths, or children's deaths, I have a moral yardstick and would probably reject it based on that.

In yr view the holocaust and Pol pot can't be condemned, except on the grounds of inefficiency. Frankly that disturbs me.

I actually think alot of horror from Pol pot etc came from clear moral relativism, which justified many decisions that they were forced to consider due to historical circumstances.

The problem is that objective values do exist, and deep down we all know it. There’s no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world. Actions like rape, cruelty, and child abuse aren’t just socially unacceptable behavior—they’re moral abominations. Some things are really wrong.

[Hit The North]

Ironically, this is a moral statement, but I guess the reason would be to be able to live rationally. To be able to judge yr own behavior and others.



I'm not claiming that I can't or don't make moral statements, only that I can't, or more properly, won't contextualise them as existing some fictitious transcendent point of view. I understand that my moral sensibilities and reflexes are largely inherited from my culture, from my political culture, and only really make sense when applied to human relations. In other words, I see morality anthropologically. I don't seek a cosmic, non-human guarantee for it.


I remember you got very upset once at people defending Pol Pot, doesn't it bother you that you can't justify a belief that genocide and the holocaust were wrong?
You're making your own leap of logic to suggest that I can't and don't condemn these things as wrong.


If someone posited a way for revolution that involved a lot of innocent deaths, or children's deaths, I have a moral yardstick and would probably reject it based on that.
Likewise.


In yr view the holocaust and Pol pot can't be condemned, except on the grounds of inefficiency. Frankly that disturbs me.
Well you're being disturbed by your own conclusion, or the ones you impute to me, not my conclusion at all.


I actually think a lot of horror from Pol pot etc came from clear moral relativism, which justified many decisions that they were forced to consider due to historical circumstances.
Perhaps. The genocidal excursions of the Crusades, the slaughter of the Huguenots, the pogroms against the Jews, all came from a clear sense of moral absolutism. Indeed, I'd suggest this same blinkered faith in the objective rightness of his own (Pol Pot's) actions, lay at the heart of the Cambodian tragedy.



The problem is that objective values do exist, and deep down we all know it. There’s no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world. Actions like rape, cruelty, and child abuse aren’t just socially unacceptable behavior—they’re moral abominations. Some things are really wrong.As much as most of us really feel this, there simply is no objective law of God to guarantee it. Simply because there is no God. So unless these morals exist in nature, I don't see how they can be properly called objective.

Btw, rape is a legal concept. According to the Taliban, it is right and proper for a man to force sex from his wife. Are the Taliban - as recipents of this objective morality - knowlingly behaving immorally? I'd suggest they think the opposite.

[spiltteeth]

Bob The Builder;1571345]I'm not claiming that I can't or don't make moral statements, only that I can't, or more properly, won't contextualise them as existing some fictitious transcendent point of view. I understand that my moral sensibilities and reflexes are largely inherited from my culture, from my political culture, and only really make sense when applied to human relations. In other words, I see morality anthropologically. I don't seek a cosmic, non-human guarantee for it.

You're making your own leap of logic to suggest that I can't and don't condemn these things as wrong.

Oh no, Bob I think yr a pretty straight guy, I assume you condemn genocide the holocaust. I usually agree with you, even here I agree with you -
if God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. For example, philosopher of science Michael Ruse explains,


Quote:
Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.

HOWEVER - The question here is not: “Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?” I’m not claiming that we must. Nor is the question: “Can we recognizeobjective moral values without believing in God?” I think that we can.

Rather the question is: “If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?” Like Ruse, I don’t see any reason to think that in the absence of God, the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what’s so special about human beings? They’re just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of human development has become taboo; but that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong. On the atheistic view, there’s nothing really wrong with your raping someone. Thus, without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience.


Likewise.

So what yr measuring stick? Why that one and not another?


Well you're being disturbed by your own conclusion, or the ones you impute to me, not my conclusion at all.

I know, I'm not saying your immoral, or support the holocaust.


Perhaps. The genocidal excursions of the Crusades, the slaughter of the Huguenots, the pogroms against the Jews, all came from a clear sense of moral absolutism. Indeed, I'd suggest this same blinkered faith in the objective rightness of his own (Pol Pot's) actions, lay at the heart of the Cambodian tragedy.

Possibly. I can say they were absolutely wrong. As long as they thought they were doing right, you can't condemn them, yet you really did seem to do so about Pol Pot.


As much as most of us really feel this, there simply is no objective law of God to guarantee it. Simply because there is no God. So unless these morals exist in nature, I don't see how they can be properly called objective.

True.


Btw, rape is a legal concept. According to the Taliban, it is right and proper for a man to force sex from his wife. Are the Taliban - as recipents of this objective morality - knowlingly behaving immorally? I'd suggest they think the opposite.

See, this is the type of thing which really disturbs me, a justification for rape! I know you see it differently, but it horrifies me.
However, I really do believe in God and therefore objective morals and I would say yes, they know it's wrong. Ask there wives whom they rape - in fact look at all the female Indian rebels who organized and fought against just this in India. They're from the same culture, yet all these woman saw it as immoral.
In fact, I will suggest even you know its wrong, deep down, regardless of 'cultural differences.'

Unless, if a Taliban raped yr loved ones you would let him off the hook, argue that he be freed....

[Outinleftfield]

In yr view the holocaust and Pol pot can't be condemned, except on the grounds of inefficiency. Frankly that disturbs me.

It can be condemned on the grounds of "Subjective Morality". I can condemn it because I feel it is wrong that many innocent people suffered and died. This is relevant to other people who share the same subjective morality. As for people who think there's nothing wrong with killing a large number of innocent people they have their own subjective morality but they are a minority in society and always will be so people acting together can help keep these people and their actions in check. There is nothing objectively wrong against me and others with the same morality forcing our morality on people who think it is OK to hurt innocent people.


The problem is that objective values do exist, and deep down we all know it. There’s no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world. Actions like rape, cruelty, and child abuse aren’t just socially unacceptable behavior—they’re moral abominations. Some things are really wrong.

Can you offer up some proof? Why are these things wrong?

The problem with trying to prove objective morality is that if you say "A is wrong because of B" then you need to find out why B is wrong and so on and so forth. The only end possible is "because I feel that it's wrong" which makes it subjective morality not objective morality.

But the lack of objective morality just means that subjective morality, how a person feels about things is the highest form of morality and that morality can be achieved simply by following your heart. Viewed in this light the lack of objective morality is a beautiful thing(at least to me).

[Hit The North]

Rather the question is: “If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?”


Actually, the question is whether it matters if the human race dies out. You appear to be arguing that it can only matter if it matters to God. I take exception to that.


So what yr measuring stick? Why that one and not another?

My measuring stick is my moral sentiment. Your measuring stick appears to be someone else's moral sentiment, i.e. Gods.


Possibly. I can say they were absolutely wrong. As long as they thought they were doing right, you can't condemn them, yet you really did seem to do so about Pol Pot. That's not true. I'm not arguing that if someone believes they are doing right that they are beyond the severest criticism. I'm arguing that their total belief that they are right (their moral absolutism) is part of the problem and is condemnable.


See, this is the type of thing which really disturbs me, a justification for rape! I know you see it differently, but it horrifies me.It's not my justification for rape, it is the Taliban's. Moreover, their moral justification has the same source as your own: in theism. That was my point. Now you claim that rape is objectively wrong. Moreover, you seem to be carrying a claim that belief in an objective morality is related to belief in a deity. So we have a bunch of religious believers (the Taliban) who believe in the one, true God, observe the scripture, observe the ritual, pray constantly and seek guidance from their God. How strange then, that these people seem to be ignorant of that objective morality which stems from the mind or will of God. How do you explain it? It seems to me that even those people who share a belief in God, cannot agree on the exact content of 'his' objective morality.

[spiltteeth]

Outinleftfield;1571355]It can be condemned on the grounds of "Subjective Morality". I can condemn it because I feel it is wrong that many innocent people suffered and died. This is relevant to other people who share the same subjective morality. As for people who think there's nothing wrong with killing a large number of innocent people they have their own subjective morality but they are a minority in society and always will be so people acting together can help keep these people and their actions in check. There is nothing objectively wrong against me and others with the same morality forcing our morality on people who think it is OK to hurt innocent people.

No, there is nothing wrong with you forcing your morality on others, and there is nothing wrong with them forcing their morality on you, without an objective measuring point.


Can you offer up some proof? Why are these things wrong?

I think I can offer arguments that compel one to logically admit there is probably a good God, but thats for religion section.


The problem with trying to prove objective morality is that if you say "A is wrong because of B" then you need to find out why B is wrong and so on and so forth. The only end possible is "because I feel that it's wrong" which makes it subjective morality not objective morality.

Obviously, my end point would be God, and then objective moral values.


But the lack of objective morality just means that subjective morality, how a person feels about things is the highest form of morality and that morality can be achieved simply by following your heart. Viewed in this light the lack of objective morality is a beautiful thing(at least to me).


Hmmm. Do you think those women the Taliban rape also think it is a beautiful thing?
Personally, I see no beauty in rape at all.

[spiltteeth]

Bob The Builder;1571436]Actually, the question is whether it matters if the human race dies out. You appear to be arguing that it can only matter if it matters to God. I take exception to that.

No, I already said : The question here is not: “Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?” I’m not claiming that we must. Nor is the question: “Can we recognizeobjective moral values without believing in God?” I think that we can.
I'm saying they are not objective.


My measuring stick is my moral sentiment. Your measuring stick appears to be someone else's moral sentiment, i.e. Gods.

That's not true. I'm not arguing that if someone believes they are doing right that they are beyond the severest criticism. I'm arguing that their total belief that they are right (their moral absolutism) is part of the problem and is condemnable.

Well, the only reason you think it is condemnable is because of your random 'moral sentiment' which was created due to chance. You could easily have the opposite moral sentiment.
There's no reason we ought to follow Bob's accidental 'sentiments,' it seems pretty meaningless, and, since they are subjective, the Taliban's views are just as morally correct.

You could never justify yr condemning a taliban raping yr loved one IF the person thought it was perfectly OK. You could stop him, kill him after so he doesn't do it again to yr loved ones, but never condemn it.


It's not my justification for rape, it is the Taliban's. Moreover, their moral justification has the same source as your own: in theism. That was my point. Now you claim that rape is objectively wrong. Moreover, you seem to be carrying a claim that belief in an objective morality is related to belief in a deity. So we have a bunch of religious believers (the Taliban) who believe in the one, true God, observe the scripture, observe the ritual, pray constantly and seek guidance from their God. How strange then, that these people seem to be ignorant of that objective morality which stems from the mind or will of God. How do you explain it? It seems to me that even those people who share a belief in God, cannot agree on the exact content of 'his' objective morality.

It doesn't have the same justification that I have at all. Precisely the reverse! According to you their moral justification has the same source as yours = personal moral sentiments that they read into their interpretations of a fairy tale, if there is no objective truth to their belief.
My source is in God as He has revealed himself to the orthodox church, and most Orthodox Christians do indeed share the same morals.
Why would I believe they know the True God's moral laws? Their beliefs are irrational, involve logical and metaphysical impossibilities, yield rotten fruit, have no historical evidential proof, are scientifically improbably so...I ought to just take their word? As I ought just take your word that such and such is condemnable because the random forces of the universe have produced a specific biochemistry that leads you to believe such and such is condemnable?
Both seem equally absurd, logically inconsistent, and I just wouldn't want to live that way.

[Ol' Dirty]

I think people should adopt rather than have children. With all of the kids that don't have someone who love them and treat them like the center of the universe, it seems almost callous to bring in more. I appreciate my parent's giving birth to me, but if I ever find a woman I really love, I'd want to adopt a kid.

Though some people say we should die off for the good of the planet, I would think that we have the same right to exist as all other fauna. We should certainly be more cautious about the way we live, but we shouldn't just commit species suicide. We're humans, and its healthy to have an anthropocentric view of the universe, so long as we try to protect forms of life that are less advanced than us.

People aren't going to stop fucking no matter what, so don't even try. :sleep:

Also, if same-sex couples could adopt more easily, there would be fewer orphans.

[Hit The North]

Well, the only reason you think it is condemnable is because of your random 'moral sentiment' which was created due to chance. You could easily have the opposite moral sentiment.
There's no reason we ought to follow Bob's accidental 'sentiments,' it seems pretty meaningless, and, since they are subjective, the Taliban's views are just as morally correct.


Where have I claimed my morals are accidental? I claim that morals originate within the community of human beings. This is far from claiming them as accidental. Neither does this make them subjective. Rather, through emphasising culture and community, I indicate that morals are inter-subjective. It makes little sense to argue that morality is subjective.


It doesn't have the same justification that I have at all. Precisely the reverse! According to you their moral justification has the same source as yours = personal moral sentiments that they read into their interpretations of a fairy tale, if there is no objective truth to their belief.
But the justification for the Taliban is not that they are "imposing personal moral sentiments that they read into their interpretations of a fairy tale." Rather their justification is:


My source is in God as He has revealed himselfWhich is exactly the justification you use:


My source is in God as He has revealed himself to the orthodox church, and most Orthodox Christians do indeed share the same morals. Oops!


Why would I believe they know the True God's moral laws? Their beliefs are irrational, involve logical and metaphysical impossibilities, yield rotten fruit, have no historical evidential proof, are scientifically improbably so...I ought to just take their word?Why would the rest of us believe that the magical mumbo-jumbo you believe in is any more rational or logical than the beliefs of the Taliban?


As I ought just take your word that such and such is condemnable because the random forces of the universe have produced a specific biochemistry that leads you to believe such and such is condemnable?
Problem is that these are not my words.


Both seem equally absurd, logically inconsistent, and I just wouldn't want to live that way.
I agree, although I don't know who's argument this is. It isn't mine.

[spiltteeth]

Bob The Builder;1572091]Where have I claimed my morals are accidental? I claim that morals originate within the community of human beings. This is far from claiming them as accidental. Neither does this make them subjective. Rather, through emphasising culture and community, I indicate that morals are inter-subjective. It makes little sense to argue that morality is subjective.

I'm sorry, I assumed you believed the universe and life on earth and the particular communities that evolved were not divinely guided, but by accident.


But the justification for the Taliban is not that they are "imposing personal moral sentiments that they read into their interpretations of a fairy tale." Rather their justification is:

Which is exactly the justification you use:

Oops!

Then again I apologize, I don't know much about the Taliban and assumed they were not Orthodox Christian.


Why would the rest of us believe that the magical mumbo-jumbo you believe in is any more rational or logical than the beliefs of the Taliban?
Problem is that these are not my words.

Well, if they are Orthodox Christian, then they do indeed have historical evidence, logically compelling arguments, and ideas scientifically validated. Again, this was based on my belief that they were Muslim or another religion.


I agree, although I don't know who's argument this is. It isn't mine.

Again, I thought you believed the universe was not guided, communities evolved the way they did due to chance, and the morals that evolved in those communities were due to a purely accidental situation, that just as easily entirely different morals could have evolved had our situation been different, as I said here :


It's true if God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. For example, philosopher of science Michael Ruse explains,


Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.

Like Ruse, I don’t see any reason to think that in the absence of God, the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what’s so special about human beings? They’re just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of human development has become taboo; but that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong. On the atheistic view, there’s nothing really wrong with your raping someone. Thus, without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience.

[Hit The North]

I have no problem with Ruse's point of view (except that it seems a tad biologically deterministic) and his reliance on the notion of adaptation does not depend upon the mere accidental.

The argument for evolution as a non-sentient process of development, in the absence of a conscious design, does not commit the advocate to adopt the mere accidental as the motor of change. Accidents are random and unpredictable; whereas science hinges on the notion of the intelligibility of nature, based on observation of particular and definite laws of development.


Well, if they are Orthodox Christian, then they do indeed have historical evidence, logically compelling arguments, and ideas scientifically validated. Again, this was based on my belief that they were Muslim or another religion. Of course the Taliban are Muslim. This is where the intolerance I noted above, which arises from belief in one, true, objective morality, emerges in your own thinking. You apparently believe that your orthodoxy is more pure, more correct, more in touch with a universal and cosmic truth, than the orthodoxy of other believers.

Meanwhile, having read a large number of your posts, I have yet to see you explicate the "historical evidence, logically compelling arguments, and ideas scientifically validated" which you claim underpin your theology.

[bricolage]

If all humans were to suddenly die in one second then you could quite conceivably argue that there is no inherently bad about this, except for the fact that well, despite the shit things they do, humans can be quite impressive things. However the point is that humans aren't going to die in one go, it's going to be a slow, dragged out process, where the first to go and those who go in the most brutal way will be the same people that suffer from exploitation and oppression every second of the day. Who died in Katrina? In the 2004 tsunami? Who dies from deforestation? From emissions? Whoever it is, it isn't those who control the means of production. So why do we oppose humans dying out? We oppose it because of the same reasons we oppose everything else we oppose.

[spiltteeth]

Bob The Builder;1572369]I have no problem with Ruse's point of view (except that it seems a tad biologically deterministic) and his reliance on the notion of adaptation does not depend upon the mere accidental.

The argument for evolution as a non-sentient process of development, in the absence of a conscious design, does not commit the advocate to adopt the mere accidental as the motor of change. Accidents are random and unpredictable; whereas science hinges on the notion of the intelligibility of nature, based on observation of particular and definite laws of development.

Yes, but those laws evolve in response to accidental circumstances. The laws could easily have produced different intersubjective morals had the circumstances been different and in fact may yet due so.
Also, it was a mere accident that you were not born into the Taliban, so then you'd be arguing that rape is fine.
Even so, the social structures that evolve in the future may include rape as a social norm, as it did in Indian society, and Taliban.
I see no reason to believe in the morals of the culture I just happen to have been born in, this is not objective.


Of course the Taliban are Muslim. This is where the intolerance I noted above, which arises from belief in one, true, objective morality, emerges in your own thinking. You apparently believe that your orthodoxy is more pure, more correct, more in touch with a universal and cosmic truth, than the orthodoxy of other believers.

Well, I believe in Darwin's science because I think it fits the geological evidence, there are other books written by scientists but I think they're factually untenable. Same with Orthodox Christianity.


Meanwhile, having read a large number of your posts, I have yet to see you explicate the "historical evidence, logically compelling arguments, and ideas scientifically validated" which you claim underpin your theology.

Yea I know. I started a thread in the religion forum where I talk about evolution and the bigbang that has 3 simple arguments for God, so far no one's contradicted them. But there not proofs, they just show how my beliefs are reasonable, logical etc they don't show how you should join the church etc
I really don't want to preach though. If someone starts a thread on the historical evidence of Christianity, or asks me etc I'll answer; but I'd feel slimy starting a thread 'why I'm right and everyone else is wrong!"

[Outinleftfield]

Obviously, my end point would be God, and then objective moral values.

Even if there was a God what makes his morals objectively right? If it could be definitively proven that God supports murder, rape, and genocide would you then support that and call it moral?

If God(by definition the being that created the universe) exists then he has his own mind like everything else. If we say that what he thinks is objectively moral then the definition of the word moral is being defined as "liked by God". If then what is liked by God goes against my feelings and needs as a human being then I see no reason to be moral.


Hmmm. Do you think those women the Taliban rape also think it is a beautiful thing?
Personally, I see no beauty in rape at all.

Where did I say rape is beautiful? What's beautiful is that humans create value. We have that power. The Taliban believe what they believe because they have been brainwashed into thinking that a certain set of beliefs is objectively moral and condoned by God. Most humans do not naturally see rape as a good thing. I doubt the Taliban would if they were not brainwashed by some moral system that claims objectivity.

The problem of objective morality is inflexibility. It can not bend to human needs. Utilitarianism even fails because quantifying utility into absolute numbers is impossible. The value given to each thing considered in the calculation is subjective.


There's no reason we ought to follow Bob's accidental 'sentiments,' it seems pretty meaningless, and, since they are subjective, the Taliban's views are just as morally correct.

Here's a reason: My moral sentiments happen to agree with Bob's.


You could never justify yr condemning a taliban raping yr loved one IF the person thought it was perfectly OK. You could stop him, kill him after so he doesn't do it again to yr loved ones, but never condemn it.

What would stop Bob from condemning it? In the absense of objective morality it makes perfect sense to justify condemnation based simply on personal beliefs.

[spiltteeth]

Outinleftfield;1573315]Even if there was a God what makes his morals objectively right? If it could be definitively proven that God supports murder, rape, and genocide would you then support that and call it moral?

If God(by definition the being that created the universe) exists then he has his own mind like everything else. If we say that what he thinks is objectively moral then the definition of the word moral is being defined as "liked by God". If then what is liked by God goes against my feelings and needs as a human being then I see no reason to be moral.

I actually feel some things are more moral than others. I have a scale. So there must be some 'perfect moral' to which I am comparing things to, since God is maximally good, that perfect moral' is from Him.


Where did I say rape is beautiful? What's beautiful is that humans create value. We have that power. The Taliban believe what they believe because they have been brainwashed into thinking that a certain set of beliefs is objectively moral and condoned by God. Most humans do not naturally see rape as a good thing. I doubt the Taliban would if they were not brainwashed by some moral system that claims objectivity.

Well, first I don't think the Taliban are brain washed to believe in rape from the Koran because many people believe in the Koran and do not condone rape. There are other cultures where rape is/was a social norm, I have mentioned India.

Now I say it is a moral abomination.
You say it is a beautiful thing that they are free to choose these morals, to create this value that rape is Ok.


The problem of objective morality is inflexibility. It can not bend to human needs. Utilitarianism even fails because quantifying utility into absolute numbers is impossible. The value given to each thing considered in the calculation is subjective.

I feel this is it's weakness. For example, did you know there are cultures that condone rape?
But seriously I do understand where yr coming from.


Here's a reason: My moral sentiments happen to agree with Bob's.

Ok. So tell people, I have a purely accidental biochemistry that was randomly formed by chance that has produced the same belief that this other guy has and which is different from the accidental biochemistry that was randomly formed by chance the produces the belief the Taliban has, so let's say no to rape!
Not exactly MLK jr.


What would stop Bob from condemning it? In the absense of objective morality it makes perfect sense to justify condemnation based simply on personal beliefs.

Then you must grant that the other person is perfectly within his moral rights to rape your loved one - so what's the condemnation?
" I condemn you for not having the same accidental morals that I have due to being born in my particular society at this particular time having evolved by change and I could've therefore just as easily have your morals that condone rape but since by no doing of my own I don't, I condemn you!"

Pretty weak condemnation, no?

And of course as your circumstances and society's change, you may change yr personal sentiments, or imagine yr child raping someone and saying "times have changed! It;s a different culture now! I personally feel raping is just fine." You can not give an objective reason why rape is NEVER right. Does this not disturb you? It does me.

So, in my opinion, "in the absence of objective morals" leads you to live a silly life, respectively.

[Outinleftfield]

Yes, but those laws evolve in response to accidental circumstances. The laws could easily have produced different intersubjective morals had the circumstances been different and in fact may yet due so.
Also, it was a mere accident that you were not born into the Taliban, so then you'd be arguing that rape is fine.
Even so, the social structures that evolve in the future may include rape as a social norm, as it did in Indian society, and Taliban.
I see no reason to believe in the morals of the culture I just happen to have been born in, this is not objective.

Considering we all reject the popular belief that capitalism is right I think it's safe to say most of us raised by the Taliban would probably reject rape as being fine. Whether we'd be brave enough to speak out or not is another thing. Possibly not some of us, but I think there is likely to be a genetic tendancy for skepticism and critical thinking in the left and a genetic tendancy towards accepting everything you hear and falling for arguments based on fear and name-calling in the right. Its obviously not absolute. We do not come preprogrammed with our political beliefs but those traits partially inherited and partially influenced by the environment do lend themselves to certain ways of thinking. Almost everything I've heard from the left even leftists I disagree with tends to be really well thought out. The right tends to just babble and rant.

Bob has a point about intersubjectiveness but I think it's more appropriate to say that morality is subjective on both a social and individual level. Social morality being what society generally considers right and wrong and individual morality being what an individual considers right and wrong. Either way it comes from the human mind. Society's beliefs coming from several human minds influenced by other human minds. The individual morality from the individual's own mind based on what ever influences lead to it including other individuals ideas the individual accepted as their own.

Beliefs in objective morality are a very effective way of controlling people. Many people would refuse to support socialism even if they logically saw it as serving their own best interests because of a belief in the morality of capitalism and the "right to property". People refused to overthrow monarchies in medeival Europe even though it was in their interests because they thought the king was divinely appointed by God.

Even Marxism turned into a sort of objective morality by Stalin. Marx was brilliant but he was human. Stalin warped Marx and put out his personal interpretation as the objectively right form of marxism.

When people realize there is no objective morality, that their subjective morality is the highest form of morality they are not deceived into serving the best interests of an exploiter nor will they fool themselves into suppressing natural human feelings of empathy because of ideas of "rights" that have been twisted to require them to hurt others or into justifying their exploitation of others. Most slave masters thought their relationship was supported by God or by some belief that certain people were objectively inferior and deserving of slavery. Without these beliefs what is left is natural human emotions and most people are not sociopaths, most people feel empathy so without some kind of objective morality exploiters can not justify for themselves exploitation.

[Outinleftfield]

Well, first I don't think the Taliban are brain washed to believe in rape from the Koran because many people believe in the Koran and do not condone rape. There are other cultures where rape is/was a social norm, I have mentioned India.

Yes and there are Christians who do not condone homophobia. The reason is that even when people claim a belief in objective morality they tend to bend that moral system when a belief becomes too inconvenient. For example Christ approves of slavery but most Christians today would call slavery a sin.


Now I say it is a moral abomination.
You say it is a beautiful thing that they are free to choose these morals, to create this value that rape is Ok.

It is the process that is beautiful, not necessarily the results. It is beautiful that humans can build things if we put our minds to it. That is not the same as saying that nuclear weapons are beautiful.

Beauty aside you are making the appeal to consequences fallacy. Even if nonbelief in objective morality would cause everyone to do things like rape and society would fall into chaos reality is not bound by that. Reality is what it is regardless of the consequences of believing in it.

You say God is perfect morality. Would that be true if God condoned rape or murder(something your God does circumstantially in OT)?


For example, did you know there are cultures that condone rape?

These cultures justify rape by asserting as objective truth that women are meant to be the property of their husbands. This is seen by people as "objectively right".


Ok. So tell people, I have a purely accidental biochemistry that was randomly formed by chance that has produced the same belief that this other guy has and which is different from the accidental biochemistry that was randomly formed by chance the produces the belief the Taliban has, so let's say no to rape!
Not exactly MLK jr.

How about this. "When I hear of someone getting raped and I imagine what that must feel like I feel their pain, I feel their anger, and I have a desire to put an end to this horrific crime. I know many other people feel the same so let's get together and do what we can to stop rape!"

A more experienced public speaker could probably put that better but that's more electrifying than what you said but still does not contradict that this morality is subjective.


Then you must grant that the other person is perfectly within his moral rights to rape your loved one - so what's the condemnation?
" I condemn you for not having the same accidental morals that I have due to being born in my particular society at this particular time having evolved by change and I could've therefore just as easily have your morals that condone rape but since by no doing of my own I don't, I condemn you!"

Pretty weak condemnation, no?

I condemn you for hurting the one I love!

Strong and to the point.


And of course as your circumstances and society's change, you may change yr personal sentiments, or imagine yr child raping someone and saying "times have changed! It;s a different culture now! I personally feel raping is just fine." You can not give an objective reason why rape is NEVER right. Does this not disturb you? It does me.

So, in my opinion, "in the absence of objective morals" leads you to live a silly life, respectively.

There doesn't need to be an objective reason. Rape hurts people and that offends my sensibilities as a social, empathic human being. I don't need any higher reason to oppose it and neither does anybody else.

[spiltteeth]

Considering we all reject the popular belief that capitalism is right I think it's safe to say most of us raised by the Taliban would probably reject rape as being fine. Whether we'd be brave enough to speak out or not is another thing. Possibly not some of us, but I think there is likely to be a genetic tendancy for skepticism and critical thinking in the left and a genetic tendancy towards accepting everything you hear and falling for arguments based on fear and name-calling in the right. Its obviously not absolute. We do not come preprogrammed with our political beliefs but those traits partially inherited and partially influenced by the environment do lend themselves to certain ways of thinking. Almost everything I've heard from the left even leftists I disagree with tends to be really well thought out. The right tends to just babble and rant.

Bob has a point about intersubjectiveness but I think it's more appropriate to say that morality is subjective on both a social and individual level. Social morality being what society generally considers right and wrong and individual morality being what an individual considers right and wrong. Either way it comes from the human mind. Society's beliefs coming from several human minds influenced by other human minds. The individual morality from the individual's own mind based on what ever influences lead to it including other individuals ideas the individual accepted as their own.

Beliefs in objective morality are a very effective way of controlling people. Many people would refuse to support socialism even if they logically saw it as serving their own best interests because of a belief in the morality of capitalism and the "right to property". People refused to overthrow monarchies in medeival Europe even though it was in their interests because they thought the king was divinely appointed by God.

Even Marxism turned into a sort of objective morality by Stalin. Marx was brilliant but he was human. Stalin warped Marx and put out his personal interpretation as the objectively right form of marxism.

When people realize there is no objective morality, that their subjective morality is the highest form of morality they are not deceived into serving the best interests of an exploiter nor will they fool themselves into suppressing natural human feelings of empathy because of ideas of "rights" that have been twisted to require them to hurt others or into justifying their exploitation of others. Most slave masters thought their relationship was supported by God or by some belief that certain people were objectively inferior and deserving of slavery. Without these beliefs what is left is natural human emotions and most people are not sociopaths, most people feel empathy so without some kind of objective morality exploiters can not justify for themselves exploitation.

You make alot of excellent points. I agree with most of yr post.
I really agree that Leftists tend, on the whole, to be less likely to give knee-jerk reactions, but are well thought out.
Even in morals. Bob the Builder has come out and expressed some really sharp and fine moral critiques where needed, and I've been impressed at his 'moral acuity.'
Yr points about 'absolute morals' being a keen means of social control is dead on. But as you know, all ideology, even Marxism, can and has fallen into this trap.
Considering the above, I can understand anyones uneasiness when they here a guy go on about 'absolute morals,' considering history.
I also like Bob's 'inter-subjectivity.' Interestingly, in the Orthodox church, we say we could manage even if the bible disappeared or never existed, because God speaks through communities, the Church as a whole is the Highest authority on earth. So actually morals are kind of 'felt out' by everyone. Even the great Orthodox saints got a bright idea, the church law forbade then from acting on it unless they ran it past the community or another, because individuals can get funny idea's. So I see this 'inter-subjectivity' at work in the Church.
Even so, it must be acknowledged that Man could have easily evolved in much different communities had by chance circumstances been different, and then therefore this 'inter-subjectivity' is really based in chance. Another type of Man could have evolved where rape was perfectly acceptable because somehow it supported survival.

So chance can be your highest authority, but this conclusion is disturbing for me, and I think for most people.
Which is why no one has ever lived consistently holding to atheistic morals (see Bertrand Russell) They always jump up to grab some transcendental justification when the real shit goes down.

[spiltteeth]

Outinleftfield;1573340]Yes and there are Christians who do not condone homophobia. The reason is that even when people claim a belief in objective morality they tend to bend that moral system when a belief becomes too inconvenient. For example Christ approves of slavery but most Christians today would call slavery a sin.

Christ does not "approve" of slavery.

But the rest is a good point and sadly true. But this points only to the weakness of people.


It is the process that is beautiful, not necessarily the results. It is beautiful that humans can build things if we put our minds to it. That is not the same as saying that nuclear weapons are beautiful.

"Doing things" is quite vague, but if you mean free-will, that we have the option to invent our own values, then I'll agree.


Beauty aside you are making the appeal to consequences fallacy. Even if nonbelief in objective morality would cause everyone to do things like rape and society would fall into chaos reality is not bound by that. Reality is what it is regardless of the consequences of believing in it.

That is true. If it's true, even I don't like it, I'll believe it. I'm simply showing the consequences of living with non-objective morals. I think its an absurd way to live. That doesn't mean it's incorrect.


You say God is perfect morality. Would that be true if God condoned rape or murder(something your God does circumstantially in OT)?

The question yr asking is, "Is God good because of what He does? Or is what he does good because it is He who does it?"
Kiekagaard wrote a book on this called 'fear and trembling'

However, I believe in objective truths. 2+2=4. Can God do the logically impossible and make 2+2=5? No.
Likewise, since I believe morals are objective, he could not make rape=good.


These cultures justify rape by asserting as objective truth that women are meant to be the property of their husbands. This is seen by people as "objectively right".

Yes. However, whenever people do anything they think is justified they think it's right.


How about this. "When I hear of someone getting raped and I imagine what that must feel like I feel their pain, I feel their anger, and I have a desire to put an end to this horrific crime. I know many other people feel the same so let's get together and do what we can to stop rape!"

A more experienced public speaker could probably put that better but that's more electrifying than what you said but still does not contradict that this morality is subjective.

First, many people - the Taliban, the greater part of India up until recently, did not/do not feel any empathy. And the fact that you do is, if yr right, just by chance.
Personally I'd say you feel empathy because you are a good person.

But even so, the Nazi's had a "better" "more efficient way" - an SS man would be given a kitten to care for. After 2 weeks his superier would give him a needle and order him to poke out the kittens eyes!
It gets rid of all that messy empathy, as does all war propaganda.

Also, look at the Numberg trials: alot of those Nazi's actually felt what they were doing was morally wrong - But they were greater because they were knowingly doing evil for the German cause! Which was a greater sacrifice in their eyes!


I condemn you for hurting the one I love!

Strong and to the point.

Yes. But, to be honest, weather you said it or not, you must add, "even though you are perfectly within your moral right to hurt my loved one."


There doesn't need to be an objective reason. Rape hurts people and that offends my sensibilities as a social, empathic human being. I don't need any higher reason to oppose it and neither does anybody else.

You may misunderstand me, which is why I wrote this (twice to Bob but you may have missed it) :


if God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. For example, philosopher of science Michael Ruse explains,


Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.

HOWEVER - The question here is not: “Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?” I’m not claiming that we must. Nor is the question: “Can we recognizeobjective moral values without believing in God?” I think that we can.

Rather the question is: “If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?” Like Ruse, I don’t see any reason to think that in the absence of God, the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what’s so special about human beings? They’re just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of human development has become taboo; but that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong. On the atheistic view, there’s nothing really wrong with your raping someone. Thus, without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience.

[spiltteeth]

Also, I don't think many atheists are brave enough to faces the position they are in.

Kai Nielsen, an atheist philosopher who attempts to defend the viability of ethics without God, in the end admits,


We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.

Bertrand Russell, for example, wrote that we must build our lives upon "the firm foundation of unyielding despair."

And it is not possible to live consistently according to an atheist world view.

Francis Schaeffer has explained this point well. Modern man, says Schaeffer, resides in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God; here life is absurd, as we have seen. In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes there is no God. But he cannot live happily in such an absurd world; therefore, he continually makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm meaning, value, and purpose, even though he has no right to, since he does not believe in God.

Bertrand Russell, too, was inconsistent. For though he was an atheist, he was an outspoken social critic, denouncing war and restrictions on sexual freedom. Russell admitted that he could not live as though ethical values were simply a matter of personal taste, and that he therefore found his own views "incredible." "I do not know the solution," he confessed.

Only if God exists can a person consistently support women's rights. For if God does not exist, then natural selection dictates that the male of the species is the dominant and aggressive one. Women would no more have rights than a female goat or chicken have rights. In nature whatever is, is right. But who can live with such a view?

Take the biological determinism of a man like Francis Crick. The logical conclusion is that man is like any other laboratory specimen. The world was horrified when it learned that at camps like Dachau the Nazis had used prisoners for medical experiments on living humans. But why not? If God does not exist, there can be no objection to using people as human guinea pigs. The end of this view is population control in which the weak and unwanted are killed off to make room for the strong. But the only way we can consistently protest this view is if God exists.

[Hit The North]

Francis Schaeffer has explained this point well. Modern man, says Schaeffer, resides in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God; here life is absurd, as we have seen. In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose.


This thread has already demonstrated that as socialists we can find meaning, value and purpose in life and all this whilst we deny the existence of God. In fact, it becomes necessary for us to deny the existence of God in order to achieve a clear state of meaning, value and purpose.


Only if God exists can a person consistently support women's rights.
This is an absurd claim given that all religion accords particular characteristics and status to men and women and prescribe particular rules to guide the relationship between the two. Again, part of the struggle for women's rights has been against theological systems of control: the struggle for contraception, for abortion, for independence from the drudgery of continuous pregnancy and therefore dependence upon men, has been waged against the fierce resistance of religious establishments who have used arguments referencing the fixed nature of God's creation in order to keep women down.


For if God does not exist, then natural selection dictates that the male of the species is the dominant and aggressive one. Women would no more have rights than a female goat or chicken have rights. In nature whatever is, is right. But who can live with such a view?

Natural selection does not dictate male domination over women - human cultures do this (particularly cultures which are rooted in the superstitions of religious dogma). Meanwhile, the idea that only religious belief can elevate human beings above goats or chickens is also fallacious. Read Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts as a case in point. Here he explains the qualitative difference between humans and other animals without having to reference God at all. Later in The German Ideology:


Originally written by Marx and Engels
The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature....Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.
Contrast the clear-sighted perspective above with the confused, mystical ramblings of religion with its infantile creation myths and mumbo-jumbo about souls.

Moreover, what really explains why women have rights and goats and chickens do not, is because women have the capacity to fight for their rights.

[spiltteeth]

Bob The Builder;1574206]This thread has already demonstrated that as socialists we can find meaning, value and purpose in life and all this whilst we deny the existence of God. In fact, it becomes necessary for us to deny the existence of God in order to achieve a clear state of meaning, value and purpose.

Bob, I agree with this first part. I've already posted this 4 times, but as I wrote :


HOWEVER - The question here is not: “Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?” I’m not claiming that we must. Nor is the question: “Can we recognizeobjective moral values without believing in God?” I think that we can.

Rather the question is: “If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?”

So, I say nothing to contradict that you can have
a clear state of meaning, value and purpose.
Simply that it is not objective.


This is an absurd claim given that all religion accords particular characteristics and status to men and women and prescribe particular rules to guide the relationship between the two.

I'm not sure how this contradicts anything I've said. You must have a transcendental belief in the equality of men and women, or else how justify women should have equal rights? Just keep them oppressed so that they are never in a position to fight bak and claim rights.
Even if I have my rights, and am not gay, I fight for gay rights because I believe that metaphysically all humans are intrinsically valuable.


Again, part of the struggle for women's rights has been against theological systems of control: the struggle for contraception, for abortion, for independence from the drudgery of continuous pregnancy and therefore dependence upon men, has been waged against the fierce resistance of religious establishments who have used arguments referencing the fixed nature of God's creation in order to keep women down.

This still contradicts nothing I say. In fact, as I point out, Darwin and natural selection was (and still is) interpreted in such a way as to justify male dominance.
Perhaps you're confusing belief in God with the social constructs of religion based in the power dynamics of society? As I'm sure you know, and Foucault has written extensively, science is used for the exact same reasons of oppression.


Natural selection does not dictate male domination over women - human cultures do this (particularly cultures which are rooted in the superstitions of religious dogma).

Oh no, I'm not saying it does, but it is often interpreted as such. In fact, a large reason all those Indian scalping laws where passed was there justification that, "according to Darwin" Indians were likely a sun-race of humans.


Meanwhile, the idea that only religious belief can elevate human beings above goats or chickens is also fallacious. Read Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts as a case in point. Here he explains the qualitative difference between humans and other animals without having to reference God at all.

This still does not give any reason why humans ought not to be used as experiments, just because they have more capability then a chimp, which has more capability then a mouse etc.

And personally I am horrified that you must reference a work to make an argument that people can be shown to be qualitatively above goats ! How insulting! This leaves the door open as if there could be a discussion on the subject! Which in yr eyes clearly there can be, but in my eyes there is no discussion, people are intrinsically valuable and deserving of rights.


Later in The German Ideology:

Contrast the clear-sighted perspective above with the confused, mystical ramblings of religion with its infantile creation myths and mumbo-jumbo about souls.

It contrasts as disgusting that people must be scientifically validated that they are 'qualitatively' worth giving rights to.


Moreover, what really explains why women have rights and goats and chickens do not, is because women have the capacity to fight for their rights.

And in many societies they do not have that capacity, so great is their oppression. So it is therefore OK in yr eyes, if indeed this is the 'real' reason.

Even so oppressed, and unable to fight, in my eyes they are intrinsically worthy of the same rights as men.

But, truly, I don't think you engaged in anything I wrote.

[The Red Next Door]

On this planet, every living thing from plants to animals to humans, rely on each other but i forgot that animals can fend for themselves, except for the ones we domesticated rely on us to take care of them and if the human population die out then those animals can't fend for themselves because they are use to us giving them the basic needs.