Communism and Morrality

[zeppelin935]

where do communists draw their morrality from if they do not believe in god how do they know right from wrong? and does their lack of belief in justice after death contribute to attrocities held umder communists banners?

[iwwforever]

In a socialist society there is no need for religion or a belief in the afterlife.
Instead of a life of meaningless consumption; filled with regrets, everyone will face their inevitable death knowing they have been a part of something worthwhile. A truly moral system that provides for the needs of all of the people.

As far as attrocities...people have committed horrible genocides, wars, inquisitions, witch hunts and more in the service of their god.

[#FF0000]

where do communists draw their morrality from if they do not believe in god how do they know right from wrong?

Reason. We know our actions have consequences and understanding this, we decide how we're going to act. You don't have to believe in a god to understand that there are consequences to one's actions. We don't need to answer to God. Humans live together in societies. We answer to each other.


and does their lack of belief in justice after death contribute to attrocities held umder communists banners?No.

[Amphictyonis]

where do communists draw their morrality from if they do not believe in god how do they know right from wrong? and does their lack of belief in justice after death contribute to attrocities held umder communists banners?

(list of atrocities waged in the name of a god)





endless

[ComradeMan]

What is good and bad from a scientific and/or hardened atheist point of view?

The origins of communism are not to be found in atheist thought but rather, ironically, much Christian thought- for example Weitlin and the Gospel of Poor Sinners and Guarantees of Harmony and Freedom- a book praised by Marx himself. The League of the Just, of which both Marx and Engels were members was founded on the credo of "establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth- based on the ideals of love of one’s neighbour, equality and justice"

Two fundamental elements of communism, namely:

"From each according to ability, to each according to need."
Common and not private ownership of property and means of production.

are also found in the New Testaments and the histories of the early Judaeo-Christian/Christian communities who were in the "belly of the beast" of the Roman Empire.

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. (Acts 4:32-)

But I doubt many people will want to hear that.
:rolleyes:

[ZeroNowhere]

And primitive communism predated them. Other than the fact that 'from each... to each...' is not a fundamental element of communism, and portraying that Bible quote as 'communist' is grasping at straws, it doesn't prove anything about the 'origin of communism', which existed a long time before Christianity.

In either case, it's not clear how 'believing in a god' in the alienated sense would give you morals. This was noted back in the day via the Euthyphro dilemma, and more recently indirectly through Moore's conception of the naturalistic fallacy. I believe that you exist, and if I believe that everything that you do is good, then nonetheless the good is independent of this (if I define the word 'good' in terms of what you do, I simply mean the word in a different way to how it is used ethically).

[¿Que?]

Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Quite the contrary. ZeroNowhere correctly points out by mentioning the Euthyphro dilemma how nonsensical religious morality is and that in fact rather than being necessary, god makes the concept of morality more problematic, not less.

[ComradeMan]

And primitive communism predated them. Other than the fact that 'from each... to each...' is not a fundamental element of communism, and portraying that Bible quote as 'communist' is grasping at straws, it doesn't prove anything about the 'origin of communism', which existed a long time before Christianity.

From each... to each....

...is not a fundamentl element of communism. Complete nonsense, it sums up the principles of how a communist society would work.

Did anyone portray the Bible as communist?

Strawman.

I said communist has origins in much Christian thought- I didn't say communism was a doctrine of Christianity nor that Christianity is communism.

If you can't argue better than generalising comments and building strawmen up then you should quit.

As regards primitive communism- well, hunter gather societies tend not to be atheistic, don't they? ;)

Ooops...



In either case, it's not clear how 'believing in a god' in the alienated sense would give you morals. This was noted back in the day via the Euthyphro dilemma, and more recently indirectly through Moore's conception of the naturalistic fallacy. I believe that you exist, and if I believe that everything that you do is good, then nonetheless the good is independent of this (if I define the word 'good' in terms of what you do, I simply mean the word in a different way to how it is used ethically).

Morality/ethics are fundamentally subjective and throughout history have been derived from the cultural mores of a given society which in turn are affected by its religious persuasion.

You've also built up a strawman with this point. No one is saying that believing in God as you simplistically put it makes you more or not believing makes you immoral- the question is rather where does morality come from and who decides what's moral or immoral if you take away the religious elements?

That is the question that you failed to answer.

[ZeroNowhere]

From each... to each....

...is not a fundamentl element of communism. Complete nonsense, it sums up the principles of how a communist society would work.You are aware of the context in which Marx quoted it, I would hope?


I said communist has origins in much Christian thought- I didn't say communism was a doctrine of Christianity nor that Christianity is communism.

If you can't argue better than generalising comments and building strawmen up then you should quit.

As regards primitive communism- well, hunter gather societies tend not to be atheistic, don't they? ;)"What is absolutely unknowable does not concern us, and the savage does not worship the thunder because he does not know what it is, but because he knows enough about the lightning that may strike his hut to be in awe of it. He worships the thunder because he dreads it; he is afraid of it on account of its known and obvious dangers which he is unable to control."

I never said that primitive societies were atheistic, and I'm not particularly 'atheistic' in the ordinary sense, at that. Nonetheless, you do seem to have argued that they were Christian, which seems even more problematic.


You've also built up a strawman with this point. No one is saying that believing in God as you simplistically put it makes you more or not believing makes you immoral- the question is rather where does morality come from and who decides what's moral or immoral if you take away the religious elements?Which assumes that these religious elements provide some sort of basis for ethics which is not there otherwise, which is why I brought up the Euthyphro dilemma.

[RGacky3]

Communism as a way of living as a social structure existed way before the communist theories of Marx, and even the early christians.

[Demogorgon]

Virtually all religion teaches that there is morality and there are a few rules pretty much everyone agrees on (don't murder, rape and so on), why do you think this is? Even a very liberal believer who holds that different religions experience the divine in different, but equally valid ways has to acknowledge that some of the great diversity of religions is coming from human thinking and a more conservative believer needs to maintain that certain religions are wrong, yet these religions still hold to certain moral standards they also accept.

So how did these religions come up with this common ground? The answer is that the simple act of living in human society is enough to see that things like murder are not a good thing. We get our morality from living in society and being able to feel empathy. Religions place this within a theological perspective but that isn't required to distinguish right from wrong.

[ComradeMan]

Virtually all religion teaches that there is morality and there are a few rules pretty much everyone agrees on (don't murder, rape and so on), why do you think this is? Even a very liberal believer who holds that different religions experience the divine in different, but equally valid ways has to acknowledge that some of the great diversity of religions is coming from human thinking and a more conservative believer needs to maintain that certain religions are wrong, yet these religions still hold to certain moral standards they also accept.

So how did these religions come up with this common ground? The answer is that the simple act of living in human society is enough to see that things like murder are not a good thing. We get our morality from living in society and being able to feel empathy. Religions place this within a theological perspective but that isn't required to distinguish right from wrong.

I agree. But I think people are completely missing the point and going off topic, turning this into a whether you believe or not kind of debate.

The question remains-

If we take away the religious element or the spiritual/philosophical element then what becomes of concepts like good and bad and who decides what's moral and immoral?

In the Western world the foundations of our modern ethics and ideas of morality are rooted in Judaeo-Christian history and Greek philosophy.

If we remove the religious/spiritual dimension to morality and ethics then we are left with vague notions of "natual law" etc- which are decidely unscientific and founded upon... what exactly?

If we use a "scientific" paradigm we might end up with Social Darwinism and survival of the fittest type ideologies and moral systems that would bring us back to the Third Reich.

[ZeroNowhere]

Scientism is actually an even more recent phenomenon. Of course morality is 'unscientific'.

Otherwise, I think that before any worthwhile discussion may be had with the OP as regards ethics, they must first grasp that the problem deals with all ethics, and therefore they have no comfortable refuge of knowledge. One must first see clearly that one knows nothing before one can learn, else all is distorted and trivialized.

Otherwise, I have no real problem with Judeo-Christian history and Greek philosophy, and think that both, for example, 'The Republic' and the Book of Matthew have much of worth to say about ethics, but one cannot fill a square hole, say, by cutting out a block of wood, if one thinks it smaller than it is, let alone if one doesn't see it.

[ckaihatsu]

What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.


Confucius
China's most famous teacher, philosopher, and political theorist, 551-479 BC

http://www.landofwisdom.com/author/confucius/page11.html

[#FF0000]

If we take away the religious element or the spiritual/philosophical element then what becomes of concepts like good and bad and who decides what's moral and immoral?

Other people. Morality is learned through society. Parents, family, religion (if one is raised with one), institutions, and other "factors of socialization" contribute to an individuals morality.

[ComradeMan]

Other people. Morality is learned through society. Parents, family, religion (if one is raised with one), institutions, and other "factors of socialization" contribute to an individuals morality.

Yeah... if we take away religion/spiritual philosophy? That does not negate the codes of ethics and morality that have been upon these up until now either.

Family- where do those values come from?
Institutions- where do those values come from?

etc...

Now, what about the future.

Let's pose the hypothetical question- all religion and spiritual philosophy is cancelled, all codes of morality and ethics are erased tabula rasa and we start again in an entirely atheist world.

Who decides what's moral and immoral and according to what?

[#FF0000]

Yeah... if we take away religion/spiritual philosophy? That does not negate the codes of ethics and morality that have been upon these up until now either.

Family- where do those values come from?
Institutions- where do those values come from?

They are socially constructed. :mellow: Where does religion come from?


Who decides what's moral and immoral and according to what?Society. Morals are socially constructed. Morals didn't just appear one day when someone thought up the Abarhamic conception of God. Ancient civilizations often had religions but the mythology of it was hardly the stuff you'd want to take your morals from (Especially in the case of the Greeks/Romans)

[ComradeMan]

They are socially constructed. :mellow: Where does religion come from?

So morality/ethics is a social construct.

So we abolish morality/ethics?


Society. Morals are socially constructed. Morals didn't just appear one day when someone thought up the Abarhamic conception of God. Ancient civilizations often had religions but the mythology of it was hardly the stuff you'd want to take your morals from (Especially in the case of the Greeks/Romans)

No one said that it was exclusively Abrahamic.

Re the Greeks and Romans etc.... but they did take their morals and ethics from the thinking that grew out of that world fashioned in turn by the "mores".

But you haven't answered my question.

All religion and spiritual philosophy is cancelled, all codes of morality and ethics are erased tabula rasa and we start again in an entirely atheist world.

Who decides what's moral and immoral and according to what?

[#FF0000]

So morality/ethics is a social construct.

So we abolish morality/ethics?

Er, no. It's just a social construct and we should acknowledge that.


All religion and spiritual philosophy is cancelled, all codes of morality and ethics are erased tabula rasa and we start again in an entirely atheist world.

Who decides what's moral and immoral and according to what? 1) Society
2) According to social norms which can stem from any number of origins from the practical to the superstitious.

For example, "Don't murder people" is a general rule that a lot of societies have and there are practical reasons for it. For hunter-gatherers, losing a member of the group was a big hindrance as it meant one less person to hunt/gather. Same with an agricultural society. So, there's why killing someone in the group would be seen as a bad thing to do. Same with stealing, or any other folkway/more.


Re the Greeks and Romans etc.... but they did take their morals and ethics from the thinking that grew out of that world fashioned in turn by the "mores".

Er, yeah. That's not because of religion, though.

[#FF0000]

Actually, I don't think it's entirely correct to say that morality is entirely a social construct. I think there is also some basic sense of empathy that people have that contributes to establishing one's morality and moral system.

[Palingenisis]

I read these ages ago and really liked them at the time...

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/127/marxism-and-ethics

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/128/marxism-and-ethics-pt2

I guess I will have to re-read them now that Ive posted the links to them.

[ComradeMan]

Er, yeah. That's not because of religion, though.

You haven't answered my question and you are badly informed about Greek and Roman Society.

[#FF0000]

I have answered your question a million times. There are other places where one can get morality outside of religion, because religion itself must get its messages from somewhere. Religion, rituals, religious texts...etc. don't exist on their own. Religions were created by people.

EDIT: lol you're right Roman religions and cults def. had values they promoted and pushed.

EDIT #2: I think I misunderstood what you were asking, or something? Can you rephrase it or something because the way I'm looking at it, it sounds like you are saying religion is what morality is based on (can't imagine why you'd be holding that position). Plus, asking "Who decides what is moral and who does not" is begging the question, so.

[Milk Sheikh]

Isn't the golden rule enough to make us all moral without relying upon God?

[ckaihatsu]

Isn't the golden rule enough to make us all moral without relying upon God?


(Note that there's a distinct difference between the wording of the 'Golden Rule' and that of Confucius, post #14. The argument is that the 'pro-active' slant of the phrasing in the Golden Rule invites a practice of imposition, wherein one could say, "Well, this *is* what I would want done to me -- I *would* want my religious beliefs to be shoved in front of my face because they're the *right* ones after all....")

(This is from recollection -- I am *not* a moralist and I don't get into these matters of individualistic-type, a-material, a-political codes of behavior and whatever.)

[ComradeMan]

I have answered your question a million times. There are other places where one can get morality outside of religion, because religion itself must get its messages from somewhere. Religion, rituals, religious texts...etc. don't exist on their own. Religions were created by people. .

Their symbiotic in relationship. Even peoples who have/had no written language, laws or institutionalised religion as such rely/relied on a metaphysical code of ethics/morality.

The point is- the whole idea of ethics/morality is de facto metaphysical.

moralitas just means that which is considered the correct behaviour.

But who decides what is correct? On what basis do they make that decision?


EDIT #2: I think I misunderstood what you were asking, or something? Can you rephrase it or something because the way I'm looking at it, it sounds like you are saying religion is what morality is based on (can't imagine why you'd be holding that position). Plus, asking "Who decides what is moral and who does not" is begging the question, so.

I'm not saying anything, I am positing a question.

Imagine a tabula rasa situation- all traces of religion and all previously held moral codes and systems of ethics have been wiped from human consciousness- a totally atheistic, non-supernatural world.

Would the concepts of "right" and "wrong" exist as such?
On what basis would these decisions be made?

[Die Rote Fahne]

I believe its okay to kill people ONLY because i don't believe in god :rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

I believe its okay to kill people ONLY because i don't believe in god :rolleyes:

But no one is saying that.

So why do you think it's wrong to kill people? On what basis do you separate right from wrong?

Perhaps the culture you grew up in?

And where did that culture derive its ideas?

It's disappointing that no one can answer my fairly straightforward question or reply with stupidity.

[Milk Sheikh]

But no one is saying that.

So why do you think it's wrong to kill people? On what basis do you separate right from wrong?

Perhaps the culture you grew up in?

And where did that culture derive its ideas?

It's disappointing that no one can answer my fairly straightforward question or reply with stupidity.

You don't kill because you don't want to be killed. It's a practical thing, so why bring in morality at all?

[ComradeMan]

You don't kill because you don't want to be killed. It's a practical thing, so why bring in morality at all?

That's nonsense because that logic would mean that you could kill to prevent yourself from being killed and thus killing is no longer wrong but only wrong sometimes.

I don't think people only don't think killing is wrong because they don't want to be killed themselves.

[#FF0000]

Would the concepts of "right" and "wrong" exist as such?
On what basis would these decisions be made?

I am pretty sure they would. Even without religion there would still be fables, fairy tales and fictional stories with the aim of spreading tenets of morality. That's all religion really is. A vessel for a world-view.

But I also think that religion's sort of a natural social development, so.

[ComradeMan]

I am pretty sure they would. Even without religion there would still be fables, fairy tales and fictional stories with the aim of spreading tenets of morality. That's all religion really is. A vessel for a world-view.

But I also think that religion's sort of a natural social development, so.

No offence intended, but whether you are "pretty sure they would" is not really evidence is it?

The fairt tales and fables you refer to are rooted in a spiritual tradition which defined what was right/wrong, good/bad in the context of the times in which they were generated.

Think about this, a "decent" Roman citizen would have probably found the idea that slavery is wrong completely alien and laughable and all kinds of notions we hold today as being right would have been held bizarre- but that same Roman would probably consider himself a good person and a good citizen.

Who decides on what is right and wrong?

[#FF0000]

No offence intended, but whether you are "pretty sure they would" is not really evidence is it?

I don't know what to tell you since you're asking me to speculate about a 100% hypothetical situation. I explained that there are a number of factors that go into developing someone's individual moral system, which religion is included in. If there was no religion, then religion wouldn't play a part in developing someone's morality. It would be all about institutions, law, and morality taught from or learned from friends, family, and people someone interacts with.

If there's no religion, then religion just doesn't play a role in developing morality.

But I think speculating on this is sort of pointless, because like I said, if you were to start all over again, there isn't really anything you can do to stop religion from developing. Religion's a thing people are just sort of bound to make up.




The fairt tales and fables you refer to are rooted in a spiritual tradition which defined what was right/wrong, good/bad in the context of the times in which they were generated.Without religion, they wouldn't have a spiritual tradition to be based on. They would just be based on what people thought were good ideas.


Think about this, a "decent" Roman citizen would have probably found the idea that slavery is wrong completely alien and laughable and all kinds of notions we hold today as being right would have been held bizarre- but that same Roman would probably consider himself a good person and a good citizen.Yeah, nothing I said contradicts this. I'm not sure what your point is.



Who decides on what is right and wrong?This is begging the question, like I said. It assumes that there's someone to decide to begin with. There is no one person who decides this. Everyone develops their own moral system (which is mostly compatible with society at large, usually)

[danyboy27]

you dont need morality to establish a viable and stable economical system.

The need for happiness and peace in a society go in pair with stability and efficiency.

Dictatorship and autoctatic regime can bring peace and stability, but the odd of sucess is verry slim.

Economical systems are also like that. you can let a fews have unlimited power and succeed in making society better, but going for that option would be a big gambling.

[ZeroNowhere]

You don't kill because you don't want to be killed. It's a practical thing, so why bring in morality at all?That's certainly not why I wouldn't kill. You're disgusting.


The point is- the whole idea of ethics/morality is de facto metaphysical.

moralitas just means that which is considered the correct behaviour.
If all you mean by 'metaphysical' is that it's not a purely factual matter, then I agree. For example, 'society' believing that something is right doesn't make it so (relativism of that sort is a meta-ethical confusion), and nor does feeling empathy (emotions are no basis for morality, they must rather be brought in line with it, as Plato noted. Emotions may see the stick in water bent).


But who decides what is correct? On what basis do they make that decision?In the first place, it is clear from what has previously been enunciated that it must ultimately be of human origin, as already noted in the Euthyphro dilemma and Moore's naturalistic fallacy. The good (or 'the beautiful'; ethics and aesthetics are one) is an intelligible thing, in the same way as all other concepts; there are physical chairs, but the form of the chair is not physical, but is rather a product of human abstraction. So, in either case, human morality originates from humanity. By extension, the fact that other people say that something is good does not make it good per se (that would be Moore's naturalistic fallacy, in a way), so the morality of something is an individual thing (one does not act according to ethics if one holds solemnly that mass murder of Jews is wrong but still do it, regardless of whether or not Hitler believed it). Similarly, and ultimately interchangeably, whether or not something is beautiful does not depend upon whether other people think that it is beautiful. Conversely, if one says that somebody else finds something beautiful, one is not saying whether it is beautiful or not.

So, then, does a person who views something, say a scene of a person helping another, as good differ in what they see from one who does not do so? In an important sense, yes, although this is not a physical one (the same light may enter their eyes). The good is not something that you see, so much as how you see things (likewise, seeing somebody as a soul is not making a proposition about how the world is, but rather is an ethical way of seeing them). If you do something willingly, you do not see it as one would see an unethical thing. Now, who decides whether something is beautiful? Well, not god, and not anybody else. On the other hand, it isn't simply an arbitrary decision either. If, for example, one, as, say, an artist, wishes to create beautiful things, one must contemplate aesthetics, what makes things beautiful. And if one wishes to paint one's soul to be good, then the same applies with ethics. Contemplation of ethics is a struggle, acting ethically is even harder, and requires that one tame the appetites and spirit and act according to ethics, approximating Plato's state. Of course, without this contemplation, one is in the position of a Platonic sight-lover or representation artist, who does not actually act according to what is good, but rather what, for example, other people call 'good', in the same way that somebody who says, "Marvellous!" on seeing a painting because others had taught him to do so doesn't actually see it as beautiful (and, of course, such custom and whatnot does not mean that one actually acts according to the good, as with the man who had only not sinned due to custom in 'The Republic', but, when given a choice, became a tyrannical man a la the ring of Gyges. To see something as bad, ethically, is to see it as one's souls descent into hellfire, hence Jesus' famous and important comments on fantasizing about sin).

[trivas7]

The origins of communism are not to be found in atheist thought but rather, ironically, much Christian thought- for example Weitlin and the Gospel of Poor Sinners and Guarantees of Harmony and Freedom- a book praised by Marx himself. The League of the Just, of which both Marx and Engels were members was founded on the credo of "establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth- based on the ideals of love of one’s neighbour, equality and justice"

Indeed; communist thought is grounded in the utopianism of radical Christian sects. Their apocalyptic rhetoric found its way into the socialist literature of the time.

[ComradeMan]

What is good and what is bad?

Or was Camus right in his nihilistic approach?

If Freud were right then it would imply a sense of shame, and thus we would have to ask where does a sense of shame come from?

This is an interesting, debated and difficult question.

The point I am trying to make is that if we remove the metaphysical then I don't think morality has any meaning.

[Thirsty Crow]

The point I am trying to make is that if we remove the metaphysical then I don't think morality has any meaning.
What exactly is this metaphysical?

And how does morality have "meaning"? You mean, as in "purpose"?
But the meaning of morality is its effective regulation of various kinds of social interaction and effectively manipulating its potentially harmful consequences. How does the metaphysical factor into this?


Indeed; communist thought is grounded in the utopianism of radical Christian sects. Their apocalyptic rhetoric found its way into the socialist literature of the time.

Evidence?

And just a warning: specific rhetoric cannot be taken as evidence for the ridiculous thesis that communist thought (arisen from the concrete labour struggles of the 19th ct.) is grounded in "utopianism" or radical Christian sects.

[ComradeMan]

What exactly is this metaphysical?

And how does morality have "meaning"? You mean, as in "purpose"?
But the meaning of morality is its effective regulation of various kinds of social interaction and effectively manipulating its potentially harmful consequences. How does the metaphysical factor into this?

Morality is discerning good from bad, right from wrong and basing decisions on that.

The universe is not moral, the biological world is not moral- we cannot condemn a male gorilla because it kills baby gorillas who are not its offspring, but we would condemn a person for that- it would be wrong, but why? Where is the scientific evidence for good and bad?

That's what I mean by metaphysical.

[Political_Chucky]

Couldn't morality also be linked to the way our brains are hardwired?

[Acostak3]

Couldn't morality also be linked to the way our brains are hardwired?Yes. I think morality is based on sympathy/empathy, which comes down to how our brains work. It probably has a evolutionary function.

[ComradeMan]

Couldn't morality also be linked to the way our brains are hardwired?

Yes it could, indeed- but then how would we judge a sociopath's acts as wrong in a hypothetical situation?

Also, the problem with the empathy/sympathy idea is that different people have different mechanisms and levels of empathy/sympathy- so how could any standard "code" be derived from it?

What causes us to have feelings of empathy or sympathy in the first place? Life-experience perhaps? If this is so then it would bring us back to the social-conditioning of our pavlovian existence and thus to extraneous forces.

[#FF0000]

What is good and what is bad?

I don't think there's a way to say for certain. Without the existence of a god, there can't really be any objective right or wrong. As far as morality for society or groups, the norms for ethics and morals are agreed upon, but aren't necessarily true.

Ethics and Morality's probably one of my least favorite branches of philosophy but personally, I'm pretty much squarely in the Utilitarian camp, just for the sheer practicality of it.

[#FF0000]

Also, the problem with the empathy/sympathy idea is that different people have different mechanisms and levels of empathy/sympathy- so how could any standard "code" be derived from it?

What causes us to have feelings of empathy or sympathy in the first place? Life-experience perhaps? If this is so then it would bring us back to the social-conditioning of our pavlovian existence and thus to extraneous forces.

I think empathy is only really a factor when it comes to personal morality. And there are a ton of things that might make someone more or less empathetic but I think on some basic level, people need people, and so that is the source of "raw" empathy, maybe.

[ZeroNowhere]

Couldn't morality also be linked to the way our brains are hardwired?No. Instinct is not morality. If I want to kill somebody, but don't because holding a gun makes my genital region hurt, for example, then this is not a moral decision. Likewise, if I kill somebody because I get pissed off at them, this is not a moral decision, and the same applies to helping somebody simply out of empathy; conversely, one may help somebody because it is right without feeling empathy. After all, I could get pissed off because of them doing something which was perfectly justified, and the question of whether an emotional response to this is appropriate is a moral one. Morality involves taming our emotions and instincts. One must contemplate and struggle with ethics, and opening up one's head really doesn't solve anything. If humans were naturally inclined somehow to enjoy senselessly torturing infants, this would not make it ethically correct (ethics deals with absolute value, and is not contingent).


Without the existence of a god, there can't really be any objective right or wrong.The 'existence of a god' doesn't really solve anything here, though. Euthyphro, again. In actual fact, though, I think that 'objective' right or wrong is just a linguistic error, and ultimately nonsensical. Objectivity makes sense when one is speaking of facts and how the world is, but it doesn't make much sense to say that, 'objectively', you should fetch my slippers, let alone that you should objectively not kill. I don't think that 'objectively' here plays any function, as it's being used in an inappropriate language-game; the engine is idling.

[Revolution starts with U]

What is good and bad from a scientific and/or hardened atheist point of view?
Nothing, because it is a theological stance. An atheist rejects God, so any connection between the deos and morality is also rejected.
Atheists, who are not nihilists, generally draw their morality from humanism or existentialism (both terms in the literal sense, not the "official" schools of thought).


The origins of communism are not to be found in atheist thought but rather, ironically, much Christian thought- for example Weitlin and the Gospel of Poor Sinners and Guarantees of Harmony and Freedom- a book praised by Marx himself. The League of the Just, of which both Marx and Engels were members was founded on the credo of "establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth- based on the ideals of love of one’s neighbour, equality and justice"

Things that are developed in a christian/muslim/buddhist/primitive society tend to be influenced by christanity/islam/buddhism/animism.... got any more gems Confucious?

Two fundamental elements of communism, namely:



"From each according to ability, to each according to need."
Common and not private ownership of property and means of production.

are also found in the New Testaments and the histories of the early Judaeo-Christian/Christian communities who were in the "belly of the beast" of the Roman Empire.

So is "stones to each who disobeyes their parents" and "fire to the chair a woman sat in on her period." What's your point?


All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. (Acts 4:32-)

But I doubt many people will want to hear that.
:rolleyes:

You mistakenly assume we haven't already.

[Revolution starts with U]

If we take away the religious element or the spiritual/philosophical element then what becomes of concepts like good and bad and who decides what's moral and immoral?
The same people who decide that now. Even if there were a God, even if that God were the Judeo Christian God, even if the Bible was divine revelation people are still the ones who make these decisions.



If we remove the religious/spiritual dimension to morality and ethics then we are left with vague notions of "natual law" etc- which are decidely unscientific and founded upon... what exactly?
Your fallacy is that you assume it has to be one or the other. Evolutionary selection processes explain it quite well.


If we use a "scientific" paradigm we might end up with Social Darwinism and survival of the fittest type ideologies and moral systems that would bring us back to the Third Reich.
If we use a "religious" paradigm we might end up with papal aristocracy and prosperity of the bloodline type ideologies and moral systems that would bring us back to the First Reich



Family- where do those values come from?
Institutions- where do those values come from?

etc...

Now, what about the future.

Evolution


Let's pose the hypothetical question- all religion and spiritual philosophy is cancelled, all codes of morality and ethics are erased tabula rasa and we start again in an entirely atheist world.

Who decides what's moral and immoral and according to what?

People, according to whatever they decide it upon. Just like they did in the past. Just like they will in the future.
It seems you are assuming some sort of divine revelation, and then saying "it should be true, so it is true..." There's a name for that fallacy, but it's slipped my mind.


Their symbiotic in relationship. Even peoples who have/had no written language, laws or institutionalised religion as such rely/relied on a metaphysical code of ethics/morality.

Evolution is thorough like that

(Also, are you including the rogue serial-killer and other types in this analysis. Even chimps have had sociopaths)


I'm not saying anything, I am positing a question.
Nono, you are begging it. There are many assumptions in your question, that are handily dealth with by Occam's razor.



Imagine a tabula rasa situation- all traces of religion and all previously held moral codes and systems of ethics have been wiped from human consciousness- a totally atheistic, non-supernatural world.

Would the concepts of "right" and "wrong" exist as such?
On what basis would these decisions be made?

Almost certainly. It wold be based off of the need for social cooperation because it helps you get laid, which means you have children, and pass on your bloodline.
Evolution is pretty awesome like that. :cool:

Couldn't morality also be linked to the way our brains are hardwired?
^ He gets it


Yes it could, indeed- but then how would we judge a sociopath's acts as wrong in a hypothetical situation?
Society, or more specifically the greatest exercisers of power in society would.. just like they do now, and did then.


Also, the problem with the empathy/sympathy idea is that different people have different mechanisms and levels of empathy/sympathy- so how could any standard "code" be derived from it?
So... are you arguing in favor of Sharia law, or Jewish Law (name please?), Biblical Law?
Piss off, I like clams, tyvm. :lol:


What causes us to have feelings of empathy or sympathy in the first place? Life-experience perhaps? If this is so then it would bring us back to the social-conditioning of our pavlovian existence and thus to extraneous forces.
It is conducive to social cooperation, and therefore more food and access to women.


I don't think there's a way to say for certain. Without the existence of a god, there can't really be any objective right or wrong. As far as morality for society or groups, the norms for ethics and morals are agreed upon, but aren't necessarily true.
There's no way to say for certain with a God either. It still is up to the interpretation of the people.
If everyone cherry-picked the Bible like Comrademan, all would be well (for the most part). But they don't. Some support the most vile parts of the Bible wholeheartedly.



No. Instinct is not morality. If I want to kill somebody, but don't because holding a gun makes my genital region hurt, for example, then this is not a moral decision. Likewise, if I kill somebody because I get pissed off at them, this is not a moral decision, and the same applies to helping somebody simply out of empathy; conversely, one may help somebody because it is right without feeling empathy. After all, I could get pissed off because of them doing something which was perfectly justified, and the question of whether an emotional response to this is appropriate is a moral one. Morality involves taming our emotions and instincts. One must contemplate and struggle with ethics, and opening up one's head really doesn't solve anything. If humans were naturally inclined somehow to enjoy senselessly torturing infants, this would not make it ethically correct (ethics deals with absolute value, and is not contingent).

The 'existence of a god' doesn't really solve anything here, though. Euthyphro, again. In actual fact, though, I think that 'objective' right or wrong is just a linguistic error, and ultimately nonsensical. Objectivity makes sense when one is speaking of facts and how the world is, but it doesn't make much sense to say that, 'objectively', you should fetch my slippers, let alone that you should objectively not kill. I don't think that 'objectively' here plays any function, as it's being used in an inappropriate language-game; the engine is idling.

:thumbup:

[ComradeMan]

The same people who decide that now. Even if there were a God, even if that God were the Judeo Christian God, even if the Bible was divine revelation people are still the ones who make these decisions.

You don't get this do you? It's why they make the decisions and on what basis- of course it's obvious that people make these decisions.


Your fallacy is that you assume it has to be one or the other. Evolutionary selection processes explain it quite well.

The evolutionary process and natural biology would justify my holding a small territory for myself, my consorts and my genetic offspring and killing anyone else who invaded that territory. From an evolutionary biological point of view that could be justified and deemed right.


If we use a "religious" paradigm we might end up with papal aristocracy and prosperity of the bloodline type ideologies and moral systems that would bring us back to the First Reich

Why? Would Jains end up with the Third Reich?


People, according to whatever they decide it upon. Just like they did in the past. Just like they will in the future.It seems you are assuming some sort of divine revelation, and then saying "it should be true, so it is true..." There's a name for that fallacy, but it's slipped my mind.

And according to WHAT do they decide it upon? That's the point.

No one is assuming any kind of divine revelation by the way.


Almost certainly. It wold be based off of the need for social cooperation because it helps you get laid, which means you have children, and pass on your bloodline.
Evolution is pretty awesome like that. :cool: .

Well done, we end up with Social Darwinism at its worst.


If everyone cherry-picked the Bible like Comrademan, all would be well (for the most part). But they don't. Some support the most vile parts of the Bible wholeheartedly.

No one is cherrypicking the Bible here. So you deny that Western systems of morality and ethics are not based on part on the Judaeo-Christian tradition combined with Greek philosophy? That's ahistorical.

For somoene who previously stated that pointing out fallacies was a fallacy in terms of attacking and argument you've done a lot of fallacy pointing here and the arguments you present do not answer the questions posited and build up strawmen.

The point is not whether systems of morality or ethics should be derived from a metaphysical basis but rather whether it is inevitable that they are/would be.

[bcbm]

The evolutionary process and natural biology would justify my holding a small territory for myself, my consorts and my genetic offspring and killing anyone else who invaded that territory. From an evolutionary biological point of view that could be justified and deemed right.

not really

[ZeroNowhere]

The evolutionary process and natural biology would justify my holding a small territory for myself, my consorts and my genetic offspring and killing anyone else who invaded that territory. From an evolutionary biological point of view that could be justified and deemed right.Nothing can be held right from an 'evolutionary biological point of view' any more than from a 'statistical mechanics point of view' or a 'second law of thermodynamics point of view'.

Although, to be honest, I don't think that saying that people believe certain things because of evolution really solves anything, or answers CM's question. In either case, I think that evolution has probably influenced sentiment, with empathy and all of that, as well as the appetites, but if it had attempted to develop morality, it can't have done very well; as Socrates made it his business to show, most people ultimately don't act according to ethics as such (and universalisability falls apart a bit when we have a society divided between masters and slaves, let alone competing commodity producers). Evolution, after all, works within a world of ephemeral dross.

Anyhow, evolution does not answer the question and leaves us as ignorant as previously. 'Evolution predisposed me to doing this' does not mean 'this is good', and indeed being good involves suppressing instincts when they come into conflict with the good. If our genes predisposed us to senseless torture of infants, it would still be wrong (and whether or not it is 'practical' to whatever end is irrelevant.)


You don't get this do you? It's why they make the decisions and on what basis- of course it's obvious that people make these decisions.The basis doesn't change, in any case, which was probably their point. The decision changes, perhaps, but that's all.


Almost certainly. It wold be based off of the need for social cooperation because it helps you get laid, which means you have children, and pass on your bloodline.
Evolution is pretty awesome like that. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_cool.gifThat's not 'right' and 'wrong', that's university.

[Revolution starts with U]

The evolutionary process and natural biology would justify my holding a small territory for myself, my consorts and my genetic offspring and killing anyone else who invaded that territory. From an evolutionary biological point of view that could be justified and deemed right.

Correct. It sure could. And it did... it's called tribalism. Socialism will only be realized through social selection.




Why? Would Jains end up with the Third Reich?

Apparently you didn't read what I quoted? Nor did you notice the word "could" as opposed to "would."



And according to WHAT do they decide it upon? That's the point.

Circumstance. Just like they do now.




Well done, we end up with Social Darwinism at its worst.
I don't follow how you made that connection. Social darwinism clearly doesen't understand natural selection. Natural selection says that whatever helps you live long enough to have children is for more individual members of the species is what will end up dominating that species.
You want socialism realized, start wanting to fuck socialist women (and vice versa for you girls out there.) and stop worshipping the politically indifferent pretty people at your regeatton concert. :lol:




No one is cherrypicking the Bible here. So you deny that Western systems of morality and ethics are not based on part on the Judaeo-Christian tradition combined with Greek philosophy? That's ahistorical.


Where did I claim such a thing?

For somoene who previously stated that pointing out fallacies was a fallacy in terms of attacking and argument you've done a lot of fallacy pointing here and the arguments you present do not answer the questions posited and build up strawmen.
I actually said "pointing out fallacies, tho necessary, does not negate the conclusion, only the validity of the argument."


The point is not whether systems of morality or ethics should be derived from a metaphysical basis but rather whether it is inevitable that they are/would be.
"metaphysical" is nonsense. Evertything that happens is physical. It's like people who say "chemicals don't come from the earth maaahn..." Yes, yes the do!
Once again, evolution explains it quite well.


not really

No... really it does (emphasis on the word "could" and concurrentlyhas).

[ZeroNowhere]

You want socialism realized, start wanting to fuck socialist women (and vice versa for you girls out there.) and stop worshipping the politically indifferent pretty people at your regeatton concert. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gifSorry, mate, I'm asexual. Natural selection fucked up a bit.


"metaphysical" is nonsense. Evertything that happens is physical. It's like people who say "chemicals don't come from the earth maaahn..." Yes, yes the do!Rules are not physical. The meaning of your sentence is not physical, as a result. Whether or not evolution predisposed us to use the signs 'Yes they do!' as we do somehow, this doesn't make their actual meaning any more tangible (because it's not a thing). One cannot touch a form.

[Revolution starts with U]

Sorry, mate, I'm asexual. Natural selection fucked up a bit.
Perhaps we develop cloning. Then your niche suddenly isn't so bad.
Evolution is not in the business of "fucking up." It just is.


Rules are not physical. The meaning of your sentence is not physical, as a result. Whether or not evolution predisposed us to use the signs 'Yes they do!' as we do somehow, this doesn't make their actual meaning any more tangible (because it's not a thing). One cannot touch a form.
It only exists in the physical world. There is no magical word land where it is floating around waiting for me to type it. If you lose all your senses and I type or even yell this sentence to you, it won't matter. You cannot understand the physical world and will never understand the meaning or rules either.
There's no such thing as the meta-physical. If it happened, it is physical. You cannot deny this without running into some kind of contradiction.

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, if there was a magical world where it was floating around waiting for you to type it, it would be physical (an 'extensionless substance' is a nonsensical notion). The point is, though, that it's not. I do agree, though, that things which happen are physical, and that's a grammatical statement, but in either case the meanings of words are not physical objects, but rules.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya. My point is just that defining it as metaphysical does nothing to address it's nature to existence. Even if it comes from some other source (say God, or the soul) it still has to ben manifested. And that manifestation only comes through reasonably explainable natural phenoma; i.e. evolutionary selection.

[ComradeMan]

Nothing can be held right from an 'evolutionary biological point of view' any more than from a 'statistical mechanics point of view' or a 'second law of thermodynamics point of view'..

Thanks- that was the point I was trying to make.

[trivas7]

What exactly is this metaphysical?

Metaphysical = pertaining to reality. If you think that human beings have no need for a code of morality, you're wrong.

[danyboy27]

Metaphysical = pertaining to reality. If you think that human beings have no need for a code of morality, you're wrong.

we didnt always had one so humm checkmate!

[trivas7]

we didnt always had one so humm checkmate!
Indeed, social evolution does happen!

[RGacky3]

Metaphysical = pertaining to reality.

Thats not what it means it means beyond physical, the non empirical part of reality (if such exists).