Atheist, where do you get your morals? [Archive]

Kwisatz Haderach

4th September 2007, 01:22

Shouldn't this be in the Religion subforum?

Now, I completely disagree with the assertion that "atheists have no morals." First of all, it is impossible for any human being to act without an ethical code. An ethical code is a collection of rules and principles that you use to determine what you should do; an ethical code consists of any rational process you use to determine what action to perform next. In order to act without an ethical code one would have to behave completely irrationally and/or randomly. As long as you follow a goal - for example, the goal of being happy in life - you are following an ethical code.

Anything that guides your actions is an ethical code. Pretty much every human being has an ethical code - the trouble is that different people have different codes. Religion usually decrees that one code is right and all others are wrong. Atheism does not allow you to make any such claim - an atheist must accept that all ethical codes are equally valid. And here lies the problem.

An atheist might be a perfectly moral person - by whatever definition of morality you wish to use - but she has no good argument to persuade other people to act in similar moral ways. As RGacky3 pointed out, what could an atheist say to a person who simply does not believe it is wrong to kill for pleasure?

We could also use an example more relevant to revolutionary left politics. Suppose, for instance, that your morals are simply "one should follow one's class interest." Fair enough.

Now, how exactly do you persuade a highly conservative American worker - for example - to follow his class interest? Bourgeois ideology tries very hard to persuade people that capitalism is morally good in and of itself. What argument do you use against that? "Capitalism is not good because there is no such thing as objective good or evil?" Yeah, good luck persuading people to risk their lives in a revolution with that kind of argument.

Kwisatz Haderach

4th September 2007, 01:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:57 am
what is the material basis of religion?
According to Marx, religion exists in order to provide the exploited classes with a reason to believe that the universe is overall fair and just (to compensate for the fact that daily life is unfair and unjust in class society). In this view, religion is essentially a coping mechanism. Once communism is established and class divisions abolished, people will no longer need a belief in the supernatural to cope with daily life, and such beliefs will naturally disappear. As long as capitalism persists, however, religion cannot disappear.

My own personal views are not in full agreement with Marx on this issue, though I believe that the above is a good analysis of the social role of most religions.

The-Spark

4th September 2007, 02:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:11 pm

So therefor if a baby was born to Atheist parents he would turn out to be a piece of shit. rapist, or something bad.??? :wacko:
You could argue that if religous people are moral and etc. Why are their priests molesting children?

which doctor

4th September 2007, 04:51

My "morals" tend to be what I find conducive to proletarian liberation.

black magick hustla

4th September 2007, 05:40

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 03, 2007 11:46 pm
Be careful not to become a petty-bourgeois atheist.

Communists understand the material basis of religion and work to abolish the conditions that give rise to it.

Petty-bourgeois athiests make it their priority to attack not only religion, but religious people, and basically alienate tons of people in the process.
Communists attack both the material conditions and religious institutions.

Obviously you are not going to directly spit at most of people's beliefs, but saying that we should only attack the material conditions is like saying we should only attack the material conditions of fascism and leave fascists themselves alone.

Religous institutions stand in direct opposition to liberation. This is a truth that anarchists have understood much better than marxists.

When communist are in bed with reactionary mullahs, there is something definitely wrong.

RHIZOMES

4th September 2007, 06:40

That's a bad analogy. 85% percent of the world can hardly be equated with fascists.

black magick hustla

4th September 2007, 06:47

Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 04, 2007 05:40 am
That's a bad analogy. 85% percent of the world can hardly be equated with fascists.
i didnt equate religion to fascism. i was just using the same logic. (material conditions)

people who equate religion to fascism are dumb.

Kwisatz Haderach

4th September 2007, 07:09

No, you were not equating religion with fascism, but you were equating religion with government - arguing that we should attack religious institutions in the same way and for the same reasons why we attack reactionary governments (as opposed to attacking only the material conditions that make those governments possible).

That may be an adequate analogy in a place like Iran, but most of the world has been secularized to an extent where it is no longer appropriate to consider religious institutions as governments in disguise.

As Stalin once pointed out, how many tank divisions does the Pope have?

The fact is that religious institutions no longer hold any political and economic power in most of the world. Even reactionary religious institutions can only do harm by spreading capitalist propaganda - thus their role is more similar to the role of the bourgeois media than the role of bourgeois governments.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

4th September 2007, 09:38

Originally posted by Compañero[email protected] 03, 2007 11:46 pm
Be careful not to become a petty-bourgeois atheist.

Communists understand the material basis of religion and work to abolish the conditions that give rise to it.

Petty-bourgeois athiests make it their priority to attack not only religion, but religious people, and basically alienate tons of people in the process.
In other words, pay lip service to the idea of atheism but bend over backwards like a sapling when it comes to religion in real life.

True, most religious people aren't assholes but that doesn't give all of them any kind of carte blanche.

Philosophical Materialist

4th September 2007, 13:41

Atheists manage to be good to their fellow person without the coercion from a cloud-man promising paradise or threatening eternal fire.

I'm guessing the answer to the OP's question lies in human nature.

apathy maybe

4th September 2007, 13:55

Originally posted by NoXion+September 04, 2007 10:38 am--> (NoXion @ September 04, 2007 10:38 am)
Compañ[email protected] 03, 2007 11:46 pm
Be careful not to become a petty-bourgeois atheist.

Communists understand the material basis of religion and work to abolish the conditions that give rise to it.

Petty-bourgeois athiests make it their priority to attack not only religion, but religious people, and basically alienate tons of people in the process.
In other words, pay lip service to the idea of atheism but bend over backwards like a sapling when it comes to religion in real life.

True, most religious people aren't assholes but that doesn't give all of them any kind of carte blanche. [/b]
Indeed, I also fail to see why the term "petty-bourgeois" is being used.

Anyway, the answer to the question, "where do atheists get their morals from?", the same place everyone else does. From their environment around them, from thinking and concluding.

Religious people may believe that there is a god where ultimately their morals come from, however, they aren't told directly by this god what is "good" and what is "evil". Instead, they are raised (perhaps) to follow a certain set of moral principles, or they conclude later in life that a particular book has the best set of moral principles, or whatever else.

They certainly don't get their morals from god though, the most they can say is that they get them from a book, that they claim is "the word of god", not quite the same thing.

Sentinel

4th September 2007, 16:40

I'm fairly convinced we need no morals at all.

Moral codes are basically like babysitters that follow some unfortunate grownups around all their lives, closely related to religions and sometimes as harmful as well. I'm sure that we can perfectly well mainly found our decisions on rationality, and thus function well as a society, be happy, all that.

And why is being socially functional rational and possible without the burden of morals then? Mainly, because we human beings are social animals whose wellbeing largely stems from the respect we get in the society we live in.

There are of course sociopathic sadists who this doesn't concern, but those will need the help of the community to deal with their issues anyway, not just for their own sake but for the community's safety.

As I see it, morals are nothing but an obstacle in the way of the optimal effiency of the human mind, and need to go!

black magick hustla

4th September 2007, 17:02

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 04, 2007 06:09 am
No, you were not equating religion with fascism, but you were equating religion with government - arguing that we should attack religious institutions in the same way and for the same reasons why we attack reactionary governments (as opposed to attacking only the material conditions that make those governments possible).

That may be an adequate analogy in a place like Iran, but most of the world has been secularized to an extent where it is no longer appropriate to consider religious institutions as governments in disguise.

As Stalin once pointed out, how many tank divisions does the Pope have?

The fact is that religious institutions no longer hold any political and economic power in most of the world. Even reactionary religious institutions can only do harm by spreading capitalist propaganda - thus their role is more similar to the role of the bourgeois media than the role of bourgeois governments.
Actually that is not true.

I was speaking about fascism as a movement, not a government. Communists have a long history of militant antifascism.

Jazzratt

4th September 2007, 19:44

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 04, 2007 12:22 am
Shouldn't this be in the Religion subforum?
Yep.

Fawkes

4th September 2007, 20:04

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 03, 2007 06:46 pm
Be careful not to become a petty-bourgeois atheist.

Communists understand the material basis of religion and work to abolish the conditions that give rise to it.

Petty-bourgeois athiests make it their priority to attack not only religion, but religious people, and basically alienate tons of people in the process.
How does attacking religious people have anything to do with being a small capitalist?

Kwisatz Haderach

4th September 2007, 21:52

Originally posted by Marmot+September 04, 2007 06:02 pm--> (Marmot @ September 04, 2007 06:02 pm)
Edric [email protected] 04, 2007 06:09 am
No, you were not equating religion with fascism, but you were equating religion with government - arguing that we should attack religious institutions in the same way and for the same reasons why we attack reactionary governments (as opposed to attacking only the material conditions that make those governments possible).

That may be an adequate analogy in a place like Iran, but most of the world has been secularized to an extent where it is no longer appropriate to consider religious institutions as governments in disguise.

As Stalin once pointed out, how many tank divisions does the Pope have?

The fact is that religious institutions no longer hold any political and economic power in most of the world. Even reactionary religious institutions can only do harm by spreading capitalist propaganda - thus their role is more similar to the role of the bourgeois media than the role of bourgeois governments.
Actually that is not true.

I was speaking about fascism as a movement, not a government. Communists have a long history of militant antifascism. [/b]
I see, but fascism is still a movement that seeks to take control of government - most of the danger of fascism comes from the possibility of fascists getting their hands on political power.

Contemporary religion, in the vast majority of cases, does not seek to take control of government. There are notable exceptions, of course, such as American fundamentalists and various Islamist groups, and I agree that we should be militantly opposed to those particular factions. But most religious institutions concern themselves almost exclusively with persuasion and propaganda - usually non-political persuasion and propaganda - and cannot be compared with political movements.

Like I said, even at their worst, reactionary religious institutions are little more than an equivalent of the bourgeois media. And I don't think anyone is suggesting that taking militant action against Fox News, for example, would be a particularly good use of our resources. It is far better to attack the economic system and material conditions that make Fox News possible, no?

pusher robot

4th September 2007, 21:59

The real question is not "where do you get your morals" but "what makes your morals right?"

Qwerty Dvorak

4th September 2007, 23:03

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 04, 2007 08:59 pm
The real question is not "where do you get your morals" but "what makes your morals right?"
No, they are right because they are morals. They are starting premises, they are inherently right. Where you get your morals is a much better question, as that would probably be the best way of judging a moral (in terms of whether or not you agree with it).

Actually upon further reflection I guess what I'm trying to say is that the two questions are one and the same.

spartan

4th September 2007, 23:15

moralism leads often to a repressive series of unwritten "acceptable" rules for society to live by. these rules are then "policed" by a higher body which will then turn itself into a hierarchy and thus into a new ruling class which will claim to have the lower classes best intrests at heart (which they wont). so as you can see moralism is reactionary and would lead to the defeat of the revolution. obviously certain things in life are completly unacceptable but how those involved deal with this is completly up to them and is none of our or society as a whole' buissness. and no higher body should ever be needed to police certain behaviour because that is unacceptable.

pusher robot

5th September 2007, 00:11

Originally posted by RedStar1916+September 04, 2007 10:03 pm--> (RedStar1916 @ September 04, 2007 10:03 pm)
pusher [email protected] 04, 2007 08:59 pm
The real question is not "where do you get your morals" but "what makes your morals right?"
No, they are right because they are morals. They are starting premises, they are inherently right. Where you get your morals is a much better question, as that would probably be the best way of judging a moral (in terms of whether or not you agree with it).

Actually upon further reflection I guess what I'm trying to say is that the two questions are one and the same.[/b]
I see your point, but obviously your logic is entirely insular as not everyone agrees on what is and is not moral. Therefore, the really interesting question is "what makes your morals right - as opposed to somone else's conflicting morals?" Either you must posit an objective basis for the superiority of your morals or you must concede that the entire concept of morals is about as meaningful as your favorite color.

RevMARKSman

5th September 2007, 00:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:40 am
I'm fairly convinced we need no morals at all.

Moral codes are basically like babysitters that follow some unfortunate grownups around all their lives, closely related to religions and sometimes as harmful as well. I'm sure that we can perfectly well mainly found our decisions on rationality, and thus function well as a society, be happy, all that.

And why is being socially functional rational and possible without the burden of morals then? Mainly, because we human beings are social animals whose wellbeing largely stems from the respect we get in the society we live in.

There are of course sociopathic sadists who this doesn't concern, but those will need the help of the community to deal with their issues anyway, not just for their own sake but for the community's safety.

As I see it, morals are nothing but an obstacle in the way of the optimal effiency of the human mind, and need to go!
Win.

Many people said, "I can be good to my fellow human beings without an all-powerful god watching."
I say, "I can be kind to my fellow human beings without looking to a made-up universal standard for my actions."

Another way of putting it:
Theists are loyal to their "god."
Most atheists are loyal to what's "moral" and "right."
I'm loyal to what I want, which most often includes being loyal to certain people happy no matter whether it's "ethical" or not.

Logic cannot be used to determine an "ought" because a) "ought" is undefined except for the clearer definition "want" and b) even if you determine that Action X will increase your overall happiness for Y amount of time it still comes down to whether you want to increase your overall happiness at that time. Logic cannot be used to command - only to determine facts. Decisions are based on the logically determined outcomes of the options available AND one's subjective preference of each outcome.

So...I don't "get [my] morals."

Dean

5th September 2007, 03:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 11:33 pm
Many people said, "I can be good to my fellow human beings without an all-powerful god watching."
I say, "I can be kind to my fellow human beings without looking to a made-up universal standard for my actions."

Another way of putting it:
Theists are loyal to their "god."
Most atheists are loyal to what's "moral" and "right."
I'm loyal to what I want, which most often includes being loyal to certain people happy no matter whether it's "ethical" or not.
Why does morality have to be static? Isn't the assumption that it is universal and certain just an allusion to Christian concepts of morality?

Morality is really just the degree and manner in which humanist interests are acted upon by the person whose morals they are. In your description, morality is either judged by what "kindness to fellow human beings" or "loyalty" mean. A better way of saying what you say here "I'm loyal to what I want" is "I am loyal to myself." In other words, you are true to yourself. This is a very presumptive statement; it assumes that you not only have a complete relatedness to your own being as you are inherantly, but that you act completely in regards to that orientation. That is not a bad way to be; it is, I think, ideal, but to say that you are that way is almost always a lie. I don't think such purity is possible.

Kindness to fellow human beings is yet much more subjective. What constitutes kindness? Doing what they say? Doing what they say they want? Doing what you think they want? Doing what you think is good for them? Insofar as all of these can constitute kindness, they overlap and contradict each other. But I think the last one is closest.

You are correct in alluding to human relationships to find a definition for morality. It is clearly defined and practiced in the activity of our social life. But there are conflicting messages for the individual in society; this is even true if we only assume the last example, "what one thinks is good for others." I think it is good for people to be free, but bad for them to die, but it may be true that some may have to die so others may be free, or vice - versa.

It should be that morality recognizes the facts of all individuals; this is especially true in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. To declare the Israeli state illegal and confiscate the IDF's arms would be a disaster and lead, undoubtably, to mass murder and chaos. But to allow the occupation to continue, and to continue to refuse a right of return, are also wrong. The resolution of this conflict, that is between the moral judgements described, is the explanation of the moral conclusions of a given individual. To be moral, one must, essentially, recognize not only the moral relevance of people in general, but the actual facts of who people are. Morality is not like a "blind lady justice"; in fact, morality must have eyes which are wrenched open to the cold, hard facts of existance, and especially to the warmth and depth of each individual in regards to whom that morality passes judgement.

But morality is not just about your relationship with others, it is also a reflection of your own self - knowledge and ideology. To know others, you must know yourself, and to know the facts and what is best for anyone you must have some concept of what it is to have such conditions. For most people, we will not be able to understand what it feels like to have many deplorable conditions to our lives, but if we have a regard to the human sentiment and faculties towhich that condition is relevant, it makes our understanding of their reality much better, and as such our orientation towards the right thing for them, including for us to do to, with, by, for or in rference to them, will grow and develop properly. You must know yourself, essentially, to know others in any realistic manner. And you must know others to do things with any good intentions, or morals.

There is a certain universality to morals, however. It is not that you can judge all people the same way, or that morality can be mathematically judged to perfection. The universal truth of morality is that if it is right for one person, it is right for all. Even in the above examples where one moral imperative contradicts the material fact and viability of another, it cannot be ignored that what is right for a human cannot be changed by environment. Only our understanding of morality can change. That is, morality recognizes all people for their basic human fact: morality is an orientation towards humans, and good morality is an orientation towards humans and for humans.

RHIZOMES

5th September 2007, 08:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:15 pm
moralism leads often to a repressive series of unwritten "acceptable" rules for society to live by. these rules are then "policed" by a higher body which will then turn itself into a hierarchy and thus into a new ruling class which will claim to have the lower classes best intrests at heart (which they wont). so as you can see moralism is reactionary and would lead to the defeat of the revolution. obviously certain things in life are completly unacceptable but how those involved deal with this is completly up to them and is none of our or society as a whole' buissness. and no higher body should ever be needed to police certain behaviour because that is unacceptable.
I get my socialist and anarchist beliefs from various sects of Sufism (Mystical anti-authoritarian Islam) and what I see as Islam's original egalitarian message before it was hijacked by fundamentalist Islamofascists.

I think it depends on the religion. Basically, if it's say... the Catholic church, it would be abolished since it's basically a private enterprise. But say, with Sunni Islam, where a Catholic church style hierarchy conflicts with Sunni beliefs, it should be tolerated. And if the religion in it's current interpretation is reactionary, yes it should be repressed and more egalitarian and anti-authoritarian strands of the religion should be promoted.

Like, I know a lot of Marxists want religion to be suppressed, I think that just creates tension with the majority religious working class and the government and that's not good. If you promoted these anti-authoritarian and egalitarian strands of the religion in question, it would get religious people on your side instead of in the hands of right-wing reactionaries who are a lot friendly to them.

Now, if only other Muslims felt the same :P.

RevMARKSman

6th September 2007, 00:39

That would all be a somewhat hole-free argument, except:

There is a certain universality to morals, however. It is not that you can judge all people the same way, or that morality can be mathematically judged to perfection. The universal truth of morality is that if it is right for one person, it is right for all. Even in the above examples where one moral imperative contradicts the material fact and viability of another, it cannot be ignored that what is right for a human cannot be changed by environment. Only our understanding of morality can change. That is, morality recognizes all people for their basic human fact: morality is an orientation towards humans, and good morality is an orientation towards humans and for humans.

Define "right," "wrong," and "good morality."

Dean

6th September 2007, 00:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:39 pm
That would all be a somewhat hole-free argument, except:

There is a certain universality to morals, however. It is not that you can judge all people the same way, or that morality can be mathematically judged to perfection. The universal truth of morality is that if it is right for one person, it is right for all. Even in the above examples where one moral imperative contradicts the material fact and viability of another, it cannot be ignored that what is right for a human cannot be changed by environment. Only our understanding of morality can change. That is, morality recognizes all people for their basic human fact: morality is an orientation towards humans, and good morality is an orientation towards humans and for humans.

Define "right," "wrong," and "good morality."
Good morality: Considered morally acceptable.

Right: correct
Wrong: incorrect

RevMARKSman

6th September 2007, 00:47

Originally posted by Dean+September 05, 2007 06:43 pm--> (Dean @ September 05, 2007 06:43 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 11:39 pm
That would all be a somewhat hole-free argument, except:

There is a certain universality to morals, however. It is not that you can judge all people the same way, or that morality can be mathematically judged to perfection. The universal truth of morality is that if it is right for one person, it is right for all. Even in the above examples where one moral imperative contradicts the material fact and viability of another, it cannot be ignored that what is right for a human cannot be changed by environment. Only our understanding of morality can change. That is, morality recognizes all people for their basic human fact: morality is an orientation towards humans, and good morality is an orientation towards humans and for humans.

Define "right," "wrong," and "good morality."
Good morality: Considered morally acceptable.

Right: correct
Wrong: incorrect [/b]
There is no "incorrect" way to act. Incorrect is an adjective used to describe whether a given statement conflicts with objective reality. Try again.

R_P_A_S

6th September 2007, 04:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:40 pm
I'm fairly convinced we need no morals at all.

Moral codes are basically like babysitters that follow some unfortunate grownups around all their lives, closely related to religions and sometimes as harmful as well. I'm sure that we can perfectly well mainly found our decisions on rationality, and thus function well as a society, be happy, all that.

And why is being socially functional rational and possible without the burden of morals then? Mainly, because we human beings are social animals whose wellbeing largely stems from the respect we get in the society we live in.

There are of course sociopathic sadists who this doesn't concern, but those will need the help of the community to deal with their issues anyway, not just for their own sake but for the community's safety.

As I see it, morals are nothing but an obstacle in the way of the optimal effiency of the human mind, and need to go!
I guess I associate MORALS with good and acceptable behavior. NOT necessarily stuff like

"don't have sex until your married" or
"you shouldn't steal from your work place"

But with stuff like

-don't walk up to people and just punch them
-dont have sex in the middle of the street with people walking by
-and/or Raping women is OK.

and it's easy to forget that the reason we don't go around randomly killing, raping and hurting others is because we have rationality? and with the whole thing you said about being social animals.

We are not respectful and kind only because of morals handed down by religious upbringing. and we are not respectful out of fear of hell or punishment from god. but rather so we can live and respect those in our society to receive the same back? :unsure:

Sentinel

6th September 2007, 05:03

Yes, I was talking about all morals. Not just religious/superstitious ones, but any kind of sets of rules which are based on abstract concepts such as 'good', 'bad' etc. We don't need that stuff, and it can very suddenly become very dangerous if the accepted code of morals develops into a malicious direction due to an influential person/movement etc imposing that.

Rationality all the way, it's not just the most effective but also the safe path.

and it's easy to forget that the reason we don't go around randomly killing, raping and hurting others is because we have rationality? and with the whole thing you said about being social animals.

We are not respectful and kind only because of morals handed down by religious upbringing. and we are not respectful out of fear of hell or punishment from god. but rather so we can live and respect those in our society to receive the same back?

Exactly.

funkmasterswede

6th September 2007, 05:51

I do not believe in transcendent morality in any sense and frankly nothing can be absolutely wrong or right without a moral giver. Hence, human morality or desirable behaviour has to be based on some fundamental value of humanity. This is my issue with materialism; for me morality presupposes an essence or value among humans and if there is no human nature how can materialism yield any definition of morality. When morality becomes arbitrary if it does not correspond to some value.

At this point morality in any society should be based on things that are viewed as intuitively wrong by the populous such as murder and rape. I personally do not view these as wrong in a transcendent sense; but rather they detrimental to humans wanting to exist and flourish.

R_P_A_S

6th September 2007, 07:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:51 am
I do not believe in transcendent morality in any sense and frankly nothing can be absolutely wrong or right without a moral giver. Hence, human morality or desirable behaviour has to be based on some fundamental value of humanity. This is my issue with materialism; for me morality presupposes an essence or value among humans and if there is no human nature how can materialism yield any definition of morality. When morality becomes arbitrary if it does not correspond to some value.

At this point morality in any society should be based on things that are viewed as intuitively wrong by the populous such as murder and rape. I personally do not view these as wrong in a transcendent sense; but rather they detrimental to humans wanting to exist and flourish.
I been pondering heavily on this question my self.

where do we get our morals and our "rights from wrongs"?
I'm trying my hardest to be a free thinker about this one.
Let's get rid of what I believe are the two main things that shape our brains
on how we perceive and what we consider moral and "right from wrong"

1. Religion and God
2. The Laws, set by a state that most of us want to get rid of.

So does religion ever say "it's bad to rape!" it might not be in the 10 commandments but it's pretty clear that rape is not consider christian, jew or whatever. It's not acceptable behavior its condone.

The laws of the state also condone this and It's punishable. hard time in prison is served for rape and once you are in prison fellow inmates will most likely hurt you, even kill you because you are a "rapist"

regardless being against both religion and the laws implemented by the state I believe it's pretty accurate to say that most of us view rape as "bad" not because we fear going to hell or going to prison. BUT because it just just wrong to do that to an other person. Who the fuck do you think you are? Physically forcing your self with no consent on someone and mentally scaring a human being for life?

Why is it so difficult for human beings to view rape as bad because of rational reasons and well.. i don't know...pragmatism?

why does it have to be because of GOD or THE LAW???

and is this possible to achieve as a society?

R_P_A_S

6th September 2007, 07:14

an other argument i guess i have is that...

are we against the state law and religion using theoretical and false pretenses to condone things as bad? as oppose to allowing humans to be rational?

could that be an argument against what religion considers "morals" and what the state consider "laws"?????

:unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

pusher robot

6th September 2007, 16:13

regardless being against both religion and the laws implemented by the state I believe it's pretty accurate to say that most of us view rape as "bad" not because we fear going to hell or going to prison.

Yes, but why is it bad? Or try this: Assume that I am skeptical - prove to me that it is bad.

Who the fuck do you think you are? Physically forcing your self with no consent on someone and mentally scaring a human being for life?

Why is consent so important? Why is mentally scarring somebody wrong? What if your pleasure is greater than their harm?

R_P_A_S

6th September 2007, 19:00

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 06, 2007 03:13 pm

regardless being against both religion and the laws implemented by the state I believe it's pretty accurate to say that most of us view rape as "bad" not because we fear going to hell or going to prison.

Yes, but why is it bad? Or try this: Assume that I am skeptical - prove to me that it is bad.

Who the fuck do you think you are? Physically forcing your self with no consent on someone and mentally scaring a human being for life?

Why is consent so important? Why is mentally scarring somebody wrong? What if your pleasure is greater than their harm?
why are you an idiot?

why are you a troll?

this could go on forever

fuck off

spartan

6th September 2007, 19:29

Why is consent so important? Why is mentally scarring somebody wrong? What if your pleasure is greater than their harm?
then you are an inconsiderate bastard if your pleasure is greater than their harm!

pusher robot

6th September 2007, 20:28

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+September 06, 2007 06:00 pm--> (R_P_A_S @ September 06, 2007 06:00 pm)
pusher [email protected] 06, 2007 03:13 pm

regardless being against both religion and the laws implemented by the state I believe it's pretty accurate to say that most of us view rape as "bad" not because we fear going to hell or going to prison.

Yes, but why is it bad? Or try this: Assume that I am skeptical - prove to me that it is bad.

Who the fuck do you think you are? Physically forcing your self with no consent on someone and mentally scaring a human being for life?

Why is consent so important? Why is mentally scarring somebody wrong? What if your pleasure is greater than their harm?
why are you an idiot?

why are you a troll?

this could go on forever

fuck off [/b]
Oh dear, I've upset you. I suppose it hurts your feelings not to be able to provide any argument whatsoever in favor of your deepest-held beliefs. Well, maybe you'd feel better if you discovered Jesus or something. That way, you wouldn't have to worry about understanding why things are right or wrong, all you'd need is faith that they are so. Good luck with that!

Asstrumpet

6th September 2007, 20:46

This is an opinion and not a sourced argument, as it is based on my morals . This whole debate is on morals, though, so I suppose this is a suitable answer.

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)Why is consent so important?[/b]

Because all people have a right to choose as well as refuse.

Originally posted by pusher [email protected]
Why is mentally scarring somebody wrong?

Because that would cause them pain and mental harm. On the subject of most people's morals, this is a bad thing.

pusher robot
What if your pleasure is greater than their harm?

You have a point there, of course, but on the subject of morals this would be considered inconsiderate and immorale.

Asstrumpet

6th September 2007, 20:48

This is all simply based on what certain people think is right or wrong, which differs. I don't know where the argument is here.

Originally posted by pusher robot
Assume that I am skeptical - prove to me that it is bad.

(To add on to my last post) He doesn't need to. He has his set of morals. he thinks it is bad.

pusher robot

6th September 2007, 21:21

Originally posted by Anthemix+September 06, 2007 07:48 pm--> (Anthemix @ September 06, 2007 07:48 pm) This is all simply based on what certain people think is right or wrong, which differs. I don't know where the argument is here.

pusher robot
Assume that I am skeptical - prove to me that it is bad.

(To add on to my last post) He doesn't need to. He has his set of morals. he thinks it is bad. [/b]

(To add on to my last post) He doesn't need to. He has his set of morals. he thinks it is bad.

If you are unable or unwilling to offer any explanation behind your moral reasoning, then you are literally no better than any religionist who accepts their morals on blind faith. In fact, you are much, much worse, if you are also on a website advocating the use of violence and destruction to achieve your preferred moral ideals.

Asstrumpet

6th September 2007, 21:29

I stand with my opinion fully. Morals are, more or less, opinions, and I believe that people are entitled to an opinion, and therefore entitled to their own set of morals. People are free to think, you don't seem to think so.

I agree with this statement

Originally posted by RedStar1916
No, they are right because they are morals. They are starting premises, they are inherently right. Where you get your morals is a much better question, as that would probably be the best way of judging a moral (in terms of whether or not you agree with it).

as it stresses exactly what I do. It doesn't matter if you disagree, morals are morals. It is what people think is right and wrong. You can't change that (unless with persuasion).

pusher robot

6th September 2007, 21:35

Originally posted by Anthemix+September 06, 2007 08:29 pm--> (Anthemix @ September 06, 2007 08:29 pm) I stand with my opinion fully. Morals are, more or less, opinions, and I believe that people are entitled to an opinion, and therefore entitled to their own set of morals. People are free to think, you don't seem to think so.

I agree with this statement

RedStar1916
No, they are right because they are morals. They are starting premises, they are inherently right. Where you get your morals is a much better question, as that would probably be the best way of judging a moral (in terms of whether or not you agree with it).

as it stresses exactly what I do. It doesn't matter if you disagree, morals are morals. It is what people think is right and wrong. You can't change that (unless with persuasion). [/b]
Then what is your logical justification for imposing your morals on other people by force?

Asstrumpet

6th September 2007, 21:38

Originally posted by pusher robot+September 06, 2007 08:36 pm--> (pusher robot @ September 06, 2007 08:36 pm)
Originally posted by Anthemix+September 06, 2007 08:29 pm--> (Anthemix @ September 06, 2007 08:29 pm)I stand with my opinion fully. Morals are, more or less, opinions, and I believe that people are entitled to an opinion, and therefore entitled to their own set of morals. People are free to think, you don't seem to think so.

I agree with this statement

[email protected]
No, they are right because they are morals. They are starting premises, they are inherently right. Where you get your morals is a much better question, as that would probably be the best way of judging a moral (in terms of whether or not you agree with it).

as it stresses exactly what I do. It doesn't matter if you disagree, morals are morals. It is what people think is right and wrong. You can't change that (unless with persuasion).[/b]
Then what is your logical justification for imposing your morals on other people by force? [/b]
If you are refering to Atheists, it's not by force. Atheists seek to persuade others to change their morals, and as I said before

meh
you can't change that (unless with persuasion)

And if you mean by force as in shoving their beliefs down your throat, all you need to do is stick with your morals.

I didn't quite understand the question however, so if this post was irrelevant forgive me.

Kwisatz Haderach

7th September 2007, 01:24

Originally posted by spartan+--> (spartan)moralism leads often to a repressive series of unwritten "acceptable" rules for society to live by.[/b]
Are you suggesting there should be no rules to determine what kind of behaviour is acceptable in society? Not even things like "don't kill random people" or "do not deny other workers' access to the means of production"?

Originally posted by RevMARKSman+--> (RevMARKSman)Many people said, "I can be good to my fellow human beings without an all-powerful god watching."
I say, "I can be kind to my fellow human beings without looking to a made-up universal standard for my actions."[/b]
Of course you can. But the question is, how do you handle those people who choose NOT to be kind to their fellow human beings? This question has been asked repeatedly on this topic but so far no one has provided an answer.

Fundamentally, the problem is that if there is no objective right and wrong, then it is not objectively wrong for A to blow B's brains out if he feels like it.

Originally posted by RevMARKSman
Logic cannot be used to determine an "ought"
I completely agree. I argue that (1) logic cannot be used to determine an "ought", and (2) without an "ought", human life is meaningless and human society cannot exist. Therefore, it is necessary to find some other way to determine an "ought". In fact, that is precisely why I am religious.

Obviously, you disagree with my second point. I would ask you how you believe it is possible for any society (including communist society) to remain stable if most of its individual members feel entitled to achieve anything by any means necessary. Bear in mind that "anything" includes such things as "kill everyone I don't like" or "rape my neighbor". Surely a communist society would suppress such murderous behaviour through some kind of workers' militia, correct? But isn't that enforcing a moral code on people? Yes, it is. QED; any society must enforce a certain moral code, even if the code in question is as simple as "don't kill random people" or "do not deny other workers' access to the means of production."

Originally posted by R_P_A_S
and it's easy to forget that the reason we don't go around randomly killing, raping and hurting others is because we have rationality?
Not true; it is perfectly rational for a completely self-interested individual to torture and brutally murder you if (a) he derives pleasure from it, and (b) he believes he won't get caught.

[email protected]

Why is consent so important? Why is mentally scarring somebody wrong? What if your pleasure is greater than their harm?
then you are an inconsiderate bastard if your pleasure is greater than their harm!
Ah, but that's exactly the point - without a moral code, how do you deal with inconsiderate bastards? What do you say to them? "What you are doing is wrong?" No, it can't be wrong, since you've just said that right and wrong don't exist.

Anthemix
I stand with my opinion fully. Morals are, more or less, opinions, and I believe that people are entitled to an opinion, and therefore entitled to their own set of morals. People are free to think, you don't seem to think so.
Alright, what if someone is of the opinion that, for example, all Jews should be exterminated? Is he entitled to his own opinion? More importantly, is he entitled to act on that opinion?

If he is not entitled to act according to his own opinion, then you must agree that it is in fact necessary to "shove morals down people's throats" in certain specific cases. Morals like "do not commit genocide".

Remember, ANY RULES limiting human behaviour qualify as "morality". While you may disagree with this or that specific rule that is currently enforced in our society, it is very diffucult to disagree with any and all rules in general. Perhaps you believe that the specific kind of morality upheld by capitalist society is bad and must go. I agree with you. But that does not mean that any kind of morality in general is bad.

(in fact, if you reject all morality, then you cannot say that anything is "bad")

R_P_A_S

7th September 2007, 01:56

Originally posted by pusher robot+September 06, 2007 07:28 pm--> (pusher robot @ September 06, 2007 07:28 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:00 pm

pusher [email protected] 06, 2007 03:13 pm

regardless being against both religion and the laws implemented by the state I believe it's pretty accurate to say that most of us view rape as "bad" not because we fear going to hell or going to prison.

Yes, but why is it bad? Or try this: Assume that I am skeptical - prove to me that it is bad.

Who the fuck do you think you are? Physically forcing your self with no consent on someone and mentally scaring a human being for life?

Why is consent so important? Why is mentally scarring somebody wrong? What if your pleasure is greater than their harm?
why are you an idiot?

why are you a troll?

this could go on forever

fuck off
Oh dear, I've upset you. I suppose it hurts your feelings not to be able to provide any argument whatsoever in favor of your deepest-held beliefs. Well, maybe you'd feel better if you discovered Jesus or something. That way, you wouldn't have to worry about understanding why things are right or wrong, all you'd need is faith that they are so. Good luck with that! [/b]
yeah, you upset me. I'm inconsolable over here! :rolleyes:

anyways back to the intelligent post, the trolls got their attention for the day.

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th September 2007, 02:29

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is one hundred times more full of "goodness" than any given holy book.

Kwisatz Haderach

7th September 2007, 02:44

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+September 07, 2007 03:29 am--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ September 07, 2007 03:29 am) The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is one hundred times more full of "goodness" than any given holy book. [/b]
Really? Here are some of its contents (emphasis mine).

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

[...]

17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.
All holy books are rather ambiguous when it comes to rights (mostly because they were written before the concept of "human rights" was invented, and it takes a lot of effort to convince oneself that they actually prescribe any such rights, when in fact they don't).

I'll let you judge whether ambiguous holy books are better or worse than a clear, concise, unambiguous pro-capitalist document such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

funkmasterswede

7th September 2007, 04:59

Originally posted by pusher robot+September 06, 2007 08:35 pm--> (pusher robot @ September 06, 2007 08:35 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 08:29 pm
I stand with my opinion fully. Morals are, more or less, opinions, and I believe that people are entitled to an opinion, and therefore entitled to their own set of morals. People are free to think, you don't seem to think so.

I agree with this statement

RedStar1916
No, they are right because they are morals. They are starting premises, they are inherently right. Where you get your morals is a much better question, as that would probably be the best way of judging a moral (in terms of whether or not you agree with it).

as it stresses exactly what I do. It doesn't matter if you disagree, morals are morals. It is what people think is right and wrong. You can't change that (unless with persuasion).
Then what is your logical justification for imposing your morals on other people by force? [/b]
You know, I have to agree with robot pusher on this; and I may become a restricted member because of it, but whatever.

What is the particular injustice that the bourgeois does to the proleteriat in moral terms? One can make the argument that this is not a question of justice and Marx did not see it as such.

The effects of capitalism are dehumanizing for the proleteriat in the sense of any humanist, but without an essence (as is the case with materialism) humanism is quite meaningless. And even humanism is a relatively meaningless idea because it presupposes that what benefits humans generally and allows them to live fulfilled lives is the good. In a practical sense I agree with this, but for those who are self proclaimed materialists this cannot be viewed as morality in any real sense. A humanistic society is a goal for a revolutionary socialists in theory, but to get there the proleteriat merely employ might makes right. But unless there is a transcendent good and a supreme innate human value this is merely the intersubjective interest of a particular group that is exploited. But then again I feel the same way about natural rights and other "spooks".

There is no transcendent good or morality; there are only goals among individuals and groups and ways to get there.

pusher robot

7th September 2007, 06:45

There is no transcendent good or morality; there are only goals among individuals and groups and ways to get there.

An interesting perspective. I happen to disagree in that I do believe an objective morality can be ascertained deductively or at least inductively - but as a skeptic, your point of view also makes sense to me.

I really was not trolling this thread - I was trying to challenge people to think deeper than their own slogans. Once you scratch the surface, these seemingly easy questions can get really, really hard.

Demogorgon

7th September 2007, 12:13

I think this thread may indicate the problem involved in trying to work out morality without taking into account the effect on real people. If you treat this as an intellectual exercise you will come easily undone.

On the one hand you are not going to find some great metaphysical truth dictating to us a list of morals we should all follow. On the other hand neither can you say there is no morality as that means it is fine to do whatever you want as noboddy wants to live in a world where we can kill and rape as we please.

Rather morality comes from the kind of world we want to live in. We don't want to live in a world where people are free to kill so we say it is immoral to kill for example. On the larger scale to work out right and wrong we need to work out what is good or bad in the objective sense for people.

R_P_A_S

7th September 2007, 19:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:50 pm
Parents can teach there young children morals without any mention of the sky fairy.
but where did the parents get this morals?

Asstrumpet

7th September 2007, 20:04

Originally posted by Edric O
Alright, what if someone is of the opinion that, for example, all Jews should be exterminated? Is he entitled to his own opinion? More importantly, is he entitled to act on that opinion?

If he is not entitled to act according to his own opinion, then you must agree that it is in fact necessary to "shove morals down people's throats" in certain specific cases. Morals like "do not commit genocide".

Of course he is entitled to believe that. It is the freedom of speech and expression. An equal reaction (Anti-Fascist Action, etc.) is just as entitled.

Asstrumpet

7th September 2007, 20:05

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+September 07, 2007 06:29 pm--> (R_P_A_S @ September 07, 2007 06:29 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 03:50 pm
Parents can teach there young children morals without any mention of the sky fairy.
but where did the parents get this morals? [/b]
From their parents. Morals and rules usually are similar between family members.

spartan

7th September 2007, 20:13

From their parents. Morals and rules usually are similar between family members.
Anthemix i think he meant where did it all start for everybody IE the begining. like most western morals started with the mass adoption of christianity and/or with influences of the pagan religions (which christianity incorporated certain things and features from these religions) before christianity.

EwokUtopia

7th September 2007, 23:38

Humans evolved as social animals. We survive by sticking together and helping one another. "Morals" were an evolutionary attribute we attained around the same time as speach, its what keeps us together, dont fuck someone in a way you would not want to be fucked. The greatest enemy to Morality is Tribalism, that sets the morals of one race or religion above the morals of the other. That is an evolutionary trait which is horribly obsolete, and most "moralists" on the religious right are ardant tribalists, therefore the enemies of morality.

We do not have morals so that we wont burn in some nightmereish place for all eternity, that is selfish. We have morals to help society along.

Sexual morals, aside from any sort of forcing of sex, are bullshit, and contribute nothing to morality in general.

spartan

7th September 2007, 23:46

i have anarchist morals :)

Asstrumpet

8th September 2007, 01:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 07:13 pm

From their parents. Morals and rules usually are similar between family members.
Anthemix i think he meant where did it all start for everybody IE the begining. like most western morals started with the mass adoption of christianity and/or with influences of the pagan religions (which christianity incorporated certain things and features from these religions) before christianity.
I think that as humans gained intelligence and evolved forward they seem to automatically program default morals in their head based on their personality. It seems to be an automatic process, which can be changed by influence or persuasion, or a traumatic event, etc.

Dean

8th September 2007, 07:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:47 pm

There is no "incorrect" way to act. Incorrect is an adjective used to describe whether a given statement conflicts with objective reality. Try again.
I never said there was a basically "incorrect" way to act.

Try again.

RevMARKSman

8th September 2007, 21:46

Of course you can. But the question is, how do you handle those people who choose NOT to be kind to their fellow human beings? This question has been asked repeatedly on this topic but so far no one has provided an answer.

Fundamentally, the problem is that if there is no objective right and wrong, then it is not objectively wrong for A to blow B's brains out if he feels like it.

Exactly.

What do we do? We ostracize them and refuse to associate them because they do not make us happy. If someone, let's say, kills someone I enjoyed, I would support killing them to prevent them from doing it again.

I never said there was a basically "incorrect" way to act.

Try again.

You said, for example, murder could be considered "wrong" aka "incorrect."

However, "murder" is not a statement of fact. it is a concept. Concepts cannot be correct or incorrect.

I completely agree. I argue that (1) logic cannot be used to determine an "ought", and (2) without an "ought", human life is meaningless and human society cannot exist. Therefore, it is necessary to find some other way to determine an "ought". In fact, that is precisely why I am religious.

So, you start with a conclusion and attempt to somehow make logic "not useful" because it cannot reach that conclusion? That makes the conclusion invalid.

Also, the logic expressed in 2 is not valid. Human life is "meaningless" but that does not mean human society cannot exist.

Obviously, you disagree with my second point. I would ask you how you believe it is possible for any society (including communist society) to remain stable if most of its individual members feel entitled to achieve anything by any means necessary. Bear in mind that "anything" includes such things as "kill everyone I don't like" or "rape my neighbor". Surely a communist society would suppress such murderous behaviour through some kind of workers' militia, correct? But isn't that enforcing a moral code on people? Yes, it is. QED; any society must enforce a certain moral code, even if the code in question is as simple as "don't kill random people" or "do not deny other workers' access to the means of production."

In fact, it is not. It is making the same commands you just stated but without the bullshit of using the words "right" or "wrong": so instead of just saying "Don't kill people we like - it's wrong and we will fuck you up," we give the true explanation "Don't kill people we like - we don't like it and we'll fuck you up." Because, in the end, there is no definition of "right" and "wrong" or "intrinsic value" that doesn't start with "what I want."

Not true; it is perfectly rational for a completely self-interested individual to torture and brutally murder you if (a) he derives pleasure from it, and (b) he believes he won't get caught.

Exactly, and so society aims to prevent torture by making such individuals believe they will get caught - to make torture no longer in this person's material interest.

Ah, but that's exactly the point - without a moral code, how do you deal with inconsiderate bastards? What do you say to them? "What you are doing is wrong?" No, it can't be wrong, since you've just said that right and wrong don't exist.

It's very simple. You tell them to stop, because you want them to. If they don't, depending on how many people you've got on your side and whether the work the person contributes to society can be taken up by someone else, you can just deal with it or fuck them up.

(in fact, if you reject all morality, then you cannot say that anything is "bad")

Congratulations, you've officially been promoted to the rank of "Forum Master of the Obvious!"

Dean

9th September 2007, 13:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:46 pm

I never said there was a basically "incorrect" way to act.

Try again.

You said, for example, murder could be considered "wrong" aka "incorrect."

However, "murder" is not a statement of fact. it is a concept. Concepts cannot be correct or incorrect.
And what was the context? It is wrong in regards to morality. Morality is a statement of what is socially good and bad, actions being its object. That moral consideration comes from our knowledge and understanding of society, people, and rationality. It is a basic, rational idea that "other people feel just as I do, so I should do to others as I would have them do to me." It follows from this, quite clearly that our desire to live is a basic rationale that we should, morally, extend to others. So, it is wrong to murder.

gilhyle

9th September 2007, 16:01

No, its not objectively wrong to murder people - but its a bad habit to get into, stunts your personal development, reduces your circle of friends, and might even get you put in jail.

RevMARKSman

9th September 2007, 16:02

And what was the context? It is wrong in regards to morality. Morality is a statement of what is socially good and bad, actions being its object. That moral consideration comes from our knowledge and understanding of society, people, and rationality. It is a basic, rational idea that "other people feel just as I do, so I should do to others as I would have them do to me." It follows from this, quite clearly that our desire to live is a basic rationale that we should, morally, extend to others. So, it is wrong to murder.

So you've invented a context in which logic no longer applies? Just to say that you don't have to use ordinary definitions because you're working in "morals" is not a valid logtical argument.

Again. Explain to me how the words "correct" and "incorrect" can be applied logically to actions instead of statements about objective reality without completely invalidating the definitions of the words. Just saying "it's within the context of morality so it's rational and we should do it" is an invalid argument.

No, its not objectively wrong to murder people - but it ... reduces your circle of friends, and might even get you put in jail.

Thank you.

spartan

9th September 2007, 16:25

No, its not objectively wrong to murder people - but its a bad habit to get into, stunts your personal development, reduces your circle of friends, and might even get you put in jail.
it wont reduce your circle of friends if they like you do this as they think the same way as you. and what if there are no gaols like there should not be under an anarchist/communist society? how can it land you in gaol then? when our society becomes a reality we as a society can not get in the way of personal squables nor can we police "behaviour" in the normal sense. one would think though that in are anarchist/communist society there would be no reason to murder as there would be no gain from it like there is from murduring in a capitalist society.

gilhyle

10th September 2007, 00:23

Wel, if we are talking about a communist society and if the question is why WILL people not murder each other....then I agree with spartan. I thought we were also discussing capitalist society and whether there is any reason why humans generally are subject to an obligation not to murder each other. We're not.

Dean

11th September 2007, 01:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 03:02 pm

And what was the context? It is wrong in regards to morality. Morality is a statement of what is socially good and bad, actions being its object. That moral consideration comes from our knowledge and understanding of society, people, and rationality. It is a basic, rational idea that "other people feel just as I do, so I should do to others as I would have them do to me." It follows from this, quite clearly that our desire to live is a basic rationale that we should, morally, extend to others. So, it is wrong to murder.

So you've invented a context in which logic no longer applies? Just to say that you don't have to use ordinary definitions because you're working in "morals" is not a valid logtical argument.

Again. Explain to me how the words "correct" and "incorrect" can be applied logically to actions instead of statements about objective reality without completely invalidating the definitions of the words. Just saying "it's within the context of morality so it's rational and we should do it" is an invalid argument.

No, its not objectively wrong to murder people - but it ... reduces your circle of friends, and might even get you put in jail.

Thank you.
I explained the entire manner in which I came to the conclusion.
Take the following, which if you use your logic should be quite acceptable:

Me: "It would be beneficial for you to do a study about X. But it would be wrong not to write down your findings."

You: "How is it wrong? Define it. Other than that, your argument is great."

Me: "Wrong means incorrect. It is in the context of scientific inquiry. If you don't write the findings down, they are useless and as such we can't advance scientifically."

You: "So you've invented a context in which logic no longer applies? Just to say that you don't have to use ordinary definitions because you're working in "science" is not a valid logical argument."

It becomes abundantly clear that your argument about "definitions" is ludicrous. Explain why my description of morality is invalid, since you are so knowed on the issue, beyond the nonsensical argument you have tried to put forward.

Shall I define "abundant," "nonsensical" and "clear" for you, as well?

Comrade Rage

11th September 2007, 01:21

I get my morals from one saying:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I believe I am more ethical than someone being kind to someone, in anticipation of some 'eternal reward.'

phasmid

11th September 2007, 01:25

Wasnt the social breakdown in France during the reign to terror partly due to the fact that God had been declared dead which destroyed any moral checks on the people?

Comrade Rage

11th September 2007, 01:34

No. Besides, there are less churchgoers today there than there wer in 1968.

phasmid

11th September 2007, 01:44

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 11, 2007 12:34 am
No. Besides, there are less churchgoers today there than there wer in 1968.
I didn't say they outlawed church, I said they outlawed the very idea of a god, which is completely different. If you dont believe that there is a higher power than yourself, isnt it possible to come to the conclusion that you're allowed to do whatever you please?

RevMARKSman

11th September 2007, 01:47

I explained the entire manner in which I came to the conclusion.
Take the following, which if you use your logic should be quite acceptable:
Me: "It would be beneficial for you to do a study about X. But it would be wrong not to write down your findings."

You: "How is it wrong? Define it. Other than that, your argument is great."

Me: "Wrong means incorrect. It is in the context of scientific inquiry. If you don't write the findings down, they are useless and as such we can't advance scientifically."

You: "So you've invented a context in which logic no longer applies? Just to say that you don't have to use ordinary definitions because you're working in "science" is not a valid logical argument."

It becomes abundantly clear that your argument about "definitions" is ludicrous.

In fact it isn't. In the context you provided, you aren't talking about actual incorrect data but the absence of data which cannot be labeled as "incorrect." Not writing the data down does not mean they data are incorrect, nor does it mean they never existed. Using the word "incorrect" to describe an action, an object, or anything other than a statement about objective reality is not within the bounds of the definition.

Dean

11th September 2007, 02:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 12:47 am
In fact it isn't. In the context you provided, you aren't talking about actual incorrect data but the absence of data which cannot be labeled as "incorrect." Not writing the data down does not mean they data are incorrect, nor does it mean they never existed. Using the word "incorrect" to describe an action, an object, or anything other than a statement about objective reality is not within the bounds of the definition.
Morality, as a set of rules, can designate correct and incorrect fashions of conformity to such rules as exemplified through action (action by the way is a material fact, in reference to your strange claim to the contrary in your last post).

RevMARKSman

11th September 2007, 12:33

Morality, as a set of rules, can designate correct and incorrect fashions of conformity to such rules as exemplified through action

The only reason "incorrect" is ever used in definitions, grammar, etc. is because it results in incorrect conclusions (statements). There can never be an "incorrect" action that doesn't lead to an incorrect statement.

(action by the way is a material fact, in reference to your strange claim to the contrary in your last post).

I know that. However, action is not a statement about material reality.

Dean

11th September 2007, 14:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:33 am

Morality, as a set of rules, can designate correct and incorrect fashions of conformity to such rules as exemplified through action

The only reason "incorrect" is ever used in definitions, grammar, etc. is because it results in incorrect conclusions (statements). There can never be an "incorrect" action that doesn't lead to an incorrect statement.
...except when incorrect is used to define inadherance to a set of norms. Much like "politically corret."

(action by the way is a material fact, in reference to your strange claim to the contrary in your last post).

I know that. However, action is not a statement about material reality.

So, action is not a statement about material reality but it always leads to correct or incorrect statements? You seem to be shooting in the dark at this point.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

11th September 2007, 17:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:03 am
Yes, I was talking about all morals. Not just religious/superstitious ones, but any kind of sets of rules which are based on abstract concepts such as 'good', 'bad' etc. We don't need that stuff, and it can very suddenly become very dangerous if the accepted code of morals develops into a malicious direction due to an influential person/movement etc imposing that.

Rationality all the way, it's not just the most effective but also the safe path.

It's impossible not to have a moral code. You may say that rationality replaces morals, but all you are in fact doing is making it moral to be rational.

gilhyle

11th September 2007, 19:02

Originally posted by NoXion+September 11, 2007 04:03 pm--> (NoXion @ September 11, 2007 04:03 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 04:03 am
Yes, I was talking about all morals. Not just religious/superstitious ones, but any kind of sets of rules which are based on abstract concepts such as 'good', 'bad' etc. We don't need that stuff, and it can very suddenly become very dangerous if the accepted code of morals develops into a malicious direction due to an influential person/movement etc imposing that.

Rationality all the way, it's not just the most effective but also the safe path.

It's impossible not to have a moral code. You may say that rationality replaces morals, but all you are in fact doing is making it moral to be rational. [/b]
It is impossible not to have an a stance on what you will and will not do. But it is quite possible to be inconsistent or to have different stances at different times - thus not to have a 'code'. Secondly it is quite possible to avoid the belief that your own stance embodies a stance that others should adopt for a reason that you can or do share with other people.

It is also quite hard to believe that believing in God or any ethical code reduces the extent of beahviour that transgresses that code. Indeed there was some research in the U.S. (that I dont have a reference for) which showed that the level of sexual infidelity was highest in those population centres where there was the highest level of ostensible belief in ethical or religious codes prohibiting such activity.

Behaviour patterns and belief patterns dont necessarily correlate.

Dean

11th September 2007, 20:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:02 pm
It is impossible not to have an a stance on what you will and will not do. But it is quite possible to be inconsistent or to have different stances at different times - thus not to have a 'code'. Secondly it is quite possible to avoid the belief that your own stance embodies a stance that others should adopt for a reason that you can or do share with other people.
I don't see how that negates the fact of what morals are. Also, it should be noted that morals are necessarily subjective - that is, everyone has a different idea of what others should do and what they should do. A Marxist might say that the proletarian should rise up while the bourgeoisie should submit. Even in cases where people are more or less equal, their environment dictates what morality will develop; different conditions can call for different actions, different degrees of "moral code" adherance.

Behaviour patterns and belief patterns dont necessarily correlate.
Yet both reflect your stance on what is and isn't acceptable to do.

RevMARKSman

11th September 2007, 23:19

So, action is not a statement about material reality but it always leads to correct or incorrect statements? You seem to be shooting in the dark at this point.

It does not "always" lead to correct or incorrect statements. Stop twisting my argument.

...except when incorrect is used to define inadherance to a set of norms. Much like "politically corret."

To which set of norms? Why do people say "That's wrong (incorrect)" instead of "That's incorrect in the context of adhering to my rules?" It's because they want you to do something else. "Incorrect" can never be used as a prescriptive.

BTW I don't like the usage of "politically correct" if one is trying to actually command someone using the word "correct." It fogs up the distinction between what people want to hear from you and what is true.

The Feral Underclass

11th September 2007, 23:32

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 04, 2007 12:46 am
Petty-bourgeois athiests make it their priority to attack not only religion, but religious people, and basically alienate tons of people in the process.
How do those two things logically follow?

Firstly you have assumed, without any other kind of argument or evidence that attacking religion alienates "tons of people in the process" and secondly you have not explained why attacking religion quantifies being a petty-bourgeois atheist.

The Feral Underclass

11th September 2007, 23:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:11 pm
check out this video

Richard Dawkin talks with a Muslim extremist (http://youtube.com/watch?v=IHRkMcVrt2w)

Why do people, or ignorant once think that Atheist have no morals? what the fuck? I got in to an argument with someone I work with. he said that the only reason I have morals despite being an atheist is because I was raised Catholic. so there for religion is fundamental in shaping humans to be respectful and loving. huh?

So therefor if a baby was born to Atheist parents he would turn out to be a piece of shit. rapist, or something bad.??? :wacko:
Morality is a religious/bourgeois word used to enforce a code of behaviour onto human beings usually to serve some theological dogma or practice or to serve bourgeois interests.

Morality can be constructed to mean anything, for example wanting to give a jacket to a homeless person could be constructed as moral act. The question is, is it in fact a "moral act"?

To quote dictionary.com morality is: "conformity to the rules of right conduct" I don't disagree with that definition, but the obvious problem here is, what is "right conduct". Morality is in fact a meaningless, while at the same time wholly meaningful, concept. It's not based on an objective understanding of reality but on a subjective understanding of human behaviour.

My opinion is that our interactions as human beings should be based solely on necessity. What I mean is, our actions as human beings should be justified on need, not on some unwritten or indefinable code of practice. This need however should exist only in the confines of the paradox of freedom: That everyone is free providing they do not affect the freedom of others.

Is that morality? The frustrating thing is it can probably be defined as such. I would argue that it isn't.

Kwisatz Haderach

12th September 2007, 08:49

Originally posted by RevMARKSman+September 08, 2007 10:46 pm--> (RevMARKSman @ September 08, 2007 10:46 pm)
Of course you can. But the question is, how do you handle those people who choose NOT to be kind to their fellow human beings? This question has been asked repeatedly on this topic but so far no one has provided an answer.

Fundamentally, the problem is that if there is no objective right and wrong, then it is not objectively wrong for A to blow B's brains out if he feels like it.

Exactly.

What do we do? We ostracize them and refuse to associate them because they do not make us happy. If someone, let's say, kills someone I enjoyed, I would support killing them to prevent them from doing it again. [/b]
Wait - so it's okay to ostracize and refuse to associate with anyone who does not make us happy (where "us" is defined as any given community)? In that case, can a community decide that black people make "us" unhappy, and therefore ostracize them? What about Jews, gays, or anyone else?

After all, if the only thing wrong with murderers is that they make you or me personally unhappy, then whatever we do to murderers can also be done to anyone else that makes us personally unhappy. I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty damn scared to live in a community that could ostracize me (or worse) for making some people unhappy.

RevMARKSman
It is making the same commands you just stated but without the bullshit of using the words "right" or "wrong": so instead of just saying "Don't kill people we like - it's wrong and we will fuck you up," we give the true explanation "Don't kill people we like - we don't like it and we'll fuck you up." Because, in the end, there is no definition of "right" and "wrong" or "intrinsic value" that doesn't start with "what I want."
Might makes right? What happens if people who hate you (for whatever reason) happen to hold the "might" at a given time? Since killing is not inherently more or less wrong than, say, breathing, can a bunch of people say to you "stop breathing - we don't like you and we'll fuck you up."

Of course, you could always try appealing to the inherent rationality of human beings and argue that a community will not arbitrarily decide to persecute some of its members for no good reason... Except that's exactly what happened on numerous occasions in numerous different places.

The point is this: Yes, people want things. Morality can provide a justification for attempts to persuade (or force) people to want a different set of things. Without morality, you're stuck with whatever people happen to want at a given time, and you have no good way of changing that. The problem is that people may happen to want things that are incompatible with a socialist society (or with your continued existence). In such cases, without morality you're pretty much screwed.

gilhyle

12th September 2007, 18:14

Many of these terms can be redefined to avoid many criticisms. But the key point is whether you think that there is something intrinsic and common to them all which in some sense obliges them all to act in certain ways. Marxists deny this. Thus Marxists deny that we can be committed to a moral code because we are created by a common creator, because there is a common good, because we share certain features of concsiousness.

The second point is the assumption running through much of this thread that moral beliefs have something to do with how people actually behave. Belief in moralities have never stopped, crime war or murder. Its irrelevant. Wht is relevant is how rich society is, what oppotunities it gives people etc.

jasmine

12th September 2007, 20:39

The second point is the assumption running through much of this thread that moral beliefs have something to do with how people actually behave. Belief in moralities have never stopped, crime war or murder. Its irrelevant. Wht is relevant is how rich society is, what oppotunities it gives people etc.

I agree with this but how do you square this with socialism if you need 10 or 20 years to give people what they need?

Dean

12th September 2007, 21:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:19 pm
It does not "always" lead to correct or incorrect statements. Stop twisting my argument.
Ok. What does this mean:

There can never be an "incorrect" action that doesn't lead to an incorrect statement.

If you're saying that incorrect can only apply to statements, that's a wholly illogical concept. And It's entirely inaccurate to say that actions cannot be incorrect in reference to certain norms, such as the scientific method. If you develop a hypothesis and don't test that hypothesis, you have failed at executing the scientific method, and the incorrect action in reference to the method is your choice not to test the hypothesis.

...except when incorrect is used to define inadherance to a set of norms. Much like "politically corret."

To which set of norms? Why do people say "That's wrong (incorrect)" instead of "That's incorrect in the context of adhering to my rules?" It's because they want you to do something else. "Incorrect" can never be used as a prescriptive.

It is understood that the set of norms are moral norms adopted by the individual making the statement. Just like when I say you are wrong about this or that, it is understood that I am using my knowledge as a measuring stick. You are not really wrong ever, from the context of understanding that all ideas have a logical reason to exist by nature of the fact that they do exist. But if you are talking about the objective truth, or more accurately your concept of the objective truth, it is very realistic to use "right / wrong" to judge ideas. Similarly, there are aversions that people have to actions, and they are expressed as the "righteousness" or "wrongness" of the action. That is what gives people their morals / moral code.

BTW I don't like the usage of "politically correct" if one is trying to actually command someone using the word "correct." It fogs up the distinction between what people want to hear from you and what is true.
I agree, PC is bullshit. But it should be recognized that it does exist, and it has certain qualifiers which make some statements right or wrong in reference to political correctness. That is an abstract moral code which is very social, because the statements aren't judged for validity but whether or not they offer a sense of aversion, bigotry, etc.

gilhyle

12th September 2007, 22:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 07:39 pm

The second point is the assumption running through much of this thread that moral beliefs have something to do with how people actually behave. Belief in moralities have never stopped, crime war or murder. Its irrelevant. Wht is relevant is how rich society is, what oppotunities it gives people etc.

I agree with this but how do you square this with socialism if you need 10 or 20 years to give people what they need?
This may not answer your question but a socialist society for practical reasons needs to suppress socially disruptive elements, when it has done everything it can to facilitate their development. Not because their activities are 'morally wrong' but because they are socially disruptive - its a matter of law, not morality.

That said a socialist society might legitimately promote certain standards of behaviour and even call them 'moral' but what it does not do is look for metaphysical reasons why people are obliged to themselves to comply

RevMARKSman

13th September 2007, 00:10

There can never be an "incorrect" action that doesn't lead to an incorrect statement.

That means that all actions labeled "incorrect" where the definition of "incorrect" actually applies (i.e. grammar, definitions) are labeled as such because they can lead to incorrect statements.

But if you are talking about the objective truth, or more accurately your concept of the objective truth, it is very realistic to use "right / wrong" to judge ideas.

But it's more clear and accurate towards what you're talking about if you specify "I don't like that / That is not adherence to certain norms" rather than saying just "right/wrong."

Wait - so it's okay to ostracize and refuse to associate with anyone who does not make us happy (where "us" is defined as any given community)? In that case, can a community decide that black people make "us" unhappy, and therefore ostracize them? What about Jews, gays, or anyone else?

It's not "okay" and it's not "not okay." People can do that. I don't like it and I will fight against it.

After all, if the only thing wrong with murderers is that they make you or me personally unhappy, then whatever we do to murderers can also be done to anyone else that makes us personally unhappy. I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty damn scared to live in a community that could ostracize me (or worse) for making some people unhappy.

"whatever we do to murderers can also be done to anyone else that makes us personally unhappy"

Sure. Go ahead. But if it's just you they made unhappy, you'll probably be facing heavy opposition from everyone else.

There are many people that harass me and make me personally unhappy. Without any obstacles, I would want to physically hurt them, but I don't because a) it'd be really difficult and b) I'd get caught. So I don't want to hurt them. End of story.

The problem is that people may happen to want things that are incompatible with a socialist society (or with your continued existence).

In most cases, material conditions can be changed so that they no longer want those things. If not, I'd either run or fight.

Morality can provide a justification for attempts to persuade (or force) people to want a different set of things. Without morality, you're stuck with whatever people happen to want at a given time, and you have no good way of changing that.

"You're only supposed to scare him."

"Pain is scary..."

Many things can change what people want, some of the chief ones being threats of violence and/or isolation, a memory you might have as the result of your actions, whatever.

Might makes right? What happens if people who hate you (for whatever reason) happen to hold the "might" at a given time? Since killing is not inherently more or less wrong than, say, breathing, can a bunch of people say to you "stop breathing - we don't like you and we'll fuck you up."

Then I run, and I wait, and make sure I actually get some friends or allies before pissing someone off.

In such cases, without morality you're pretty much screwed.

A guy has a gun to your head. There are no obstacles, direct or indirect, to him shooting you. There would be no consequences - in fact he'd gain a lot.

And you think that he'll somehow not shoot you if you say: "You can't do that...because it's wrong."

Dean

13th September 2007, 01:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 11:10 pm
That means that all actions labeled "incorrect" where the definition of "incorrect" actually applies (i.e. grammar, definitions) are labeled as such because they can lead to incorrect statements.
Grammar and linguistics are only one judgement of correctness. If you were right, it would be wholly inaccurate and nonsensical to say "a scientist incorrectly executed a test."

But if you are talking about the objective truth, or more accurately your concept of the objective truth, it is very realistic to use "right / wrong" to judge ideas.

But it's more clear and accurate towards what you're talking about if you specify "I don't like that / That is not adherence to certain norms" rather than saying just "right/wrong."

You mean, "[I think] it's more clear and accurate towards what you're talking about if you specify "I don't like that / That is not adherence to certain norms" rather than saying just "right/wrong"," right?

You have just made a statement which assumes itself as correct.

Just as morality uses the term in reference to itself, so do statements about reality. Neither require the use of "my idea of reality is" or "according to my morals," because it is assumed. If you say "It's wrong to be gay" I'll assume you mean morally. If you are talking about a specific set of norms, it's usually assumed that those are the measuring stick (in a biology book saying "it is wrong to draw a hyothesis up and not test it").

You cannot destroy an entire ideology, concept or theory by contesting the definition of a term which has a clear meaning socially, linguistically, and within the context of that set of ideas especially. I have made it clear that not only is "wrong" correctly used, but that even without the context of a long moral argument the term is easily understood. You have attempted to say that I am incorrect in my assertion that morals exist because I have used "correct / incorrect" in my argument, which is somewhat ironic because I didn't even say there were objective, universal morals; I just explained an example of how and why I think morality is developed by many people, and what conclusions such a method could have.

In the end you argue that it is "more clear and accurate" to say "I don't morally agree with X" than to say "that is wrong," but you ignore that both are claiming a wrong/incorrect reality. They are both negative statements to the end that "X doesn't agree with Y," where you can replace X with a variable action, fact or statement and Y with an action, fact, statement or objective reality.

In the end, "correct/incorrect" are useless terms without a definitive Y. You can say X is incorrect while meaning that it is not in agreeance with a fictional reality in a fantasty book, even though X may be a very factual representation of reality. The factual nature of a statement is only one aspect of what "incorrect" means; it is for that reason that I can say to you "it's wrong to kill people" and you will know, if you are like most people, that I'm talking about morality and not claiming that people never kill others.

RevMARKSman

14th September 2007, 00:33

Grammar and linguistics are only one judgement of correctness. If you were right, it would be wholly inaccurate and nonsensical to say "a scientist incorrectly executed a test."

An incorrectly executed test leads to incorrect results, correct?

it is for that reason that I can say to you "it's wrong to kill people" and you will know, if you are like most people, that I'm talking about morality

And you think I will listen if your morality is entirely subjective?

You mean, "[I think] it's more clear and accurate towards what you're talking about if you specify "I don't like that / That is not adherence to certain norms" rather than saying just "right/wrong"," right?

No.

It is by definition a more clear statement if you say "You are doing something incorrectly in the context of this procedure" (of an experiment, let's say) than "You are doing something incorrectly."

If you say "That's wrong" I don't really know whether you're talking about the rules you made up about how you want people to act, or the rules the government made up ..., etc.

In the end, "correct/incorrect" are useless terms without a definitive Y. You can say X is incorrect while meaning that it is not in agreeance with a fictional reality in a fantasty book, even though X may be a very factual representation of reality.

Assume, for argument purposes, that we are talking about some strange world called X where peanuts grow on trees.

Saying "peanuts grow on trees" is still an incorrect statement.
Saying "If X were real, peanuts would grow on trees" is a correct statement.
Saying "peanuts do not grow on trees", even if you're still talking about the fantasy world, is an incorrect statement.

it is for that reason that I can say to you "it's wrong to kill people" and you will know, if you are like most people, that I'm talking about morality and not claiming that people never kill others.

The difference is, if you're saying "That's an incorrect application of X procedure," most people will continue what they're doing unless they actually want to adhere to that procedure. But a statement of "That's wrong" is nearly universally treated as a prescriptive - a command to do something else. Even though you say the sentence really means "That's incorrect in the context of my subjective morality (aka my rules of what I want people to do)," most people would do nothing if they heard that from someone; they don't care what some random person thinks about their actions. If you said "That's incorrect in the context of your subjective morality," they would also do nothing. It seems as though the entire idea of morality as a prescriptive is based on an objective, commanding standard for doing something that everyone knows about. Which there isn't.

Also, most people's moral rules are based on what they think is "right" and "wrong," not the other way around. You could say "That's incorrect in the context of my moral rules," but where do those moral rules come from besides what you personally want? If there's a higher "right" and "wrong" here, define that as well! "Right (correct)" cannot be used to describe an action in itself. There has to be a context of rules involved. So where do you start? With rules pulled out of your ass, or with some higher "right/wrong" at work independent of and predecessor to such rules, which already puts you in an incorrect usage of "right" anyway?

Oh, and while you're at it, define the word "should." Without in any way using "moral rules/code of conduct" or "What I want someone to do." Because the rules depend on what you think "should" happen, not the other way around. Right?

Dean

14th September 2007, 22:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 11:33 pm

Grammar and linguistics are only one judgement of correctness. If you were right, it would be wholly inaccurate and nonsensical to say "a scientist incorrectly executed a test."

An incorrectly executed test leads to incorrect results, correct?
Ok. "you incorrectly read the tarot cards." There is an accepted fashion to reading the tarot cards, and yet they yield resulting statements that have no relation to reality outside of those rules and the physics involved in the shuffling procedure. And yet, incorrect / wrong is applicable. I don't even have to say "you didn't follow the accepted rules of tarot reading," because unless the person is using a different set of rules, it is understood that I'm referring to a set of rules based around the card reading.

In other words, my argument stands: people can use "incorrect" to describe inadherance to a set of norms.

it is for that reason that I can say to you "it's wrong to kill people" and you will know, if you are like most people, that I'm talking about morality

And you think I will listen if your morality is entirely subjective?
If you care at all about associating with other humans beings, I'll expect you will listen. Like now. This is nothing more than an argument about how one should think; thinking is an action. And linguistics can only go so far as to describe our brain activity, it cannot wholistically relate to the mind. So you cannot claim that an argument about mental activity is purely a linguistic, or sematic, argument.

You mean, "[I think] it's more clear and accurate towards what you're talking about if you specify "I don't like that / That is not adherence to certain norms" rather than saying just "right/wrong"," right?

No.

It is by definition a more clear statement if you say "You are doing something incorrectly in the context of this procedure" (of an experiment, let's say) than "You are doing something incorrectly."

If you say "That's wrong" I don't really know whether you're talking about the rules you made up about how you want people to act, or the rules the government made up ..., etc.
...and it is by definition a more clear statement if you point out every time that you believe what you are saying. That doesn't make it useful.

I can guarantee you that a conference of ethicists deciding what should and should not be done in a given field would not use "in the context of my moral understanding" before every proposal.

Obviously, all statements have a certain vagueness to them. But that's not even the argument. You knew, initially, that I was using "wrong" to say it didn't adhere to morals I was describing as potential results of the formation of morality in humans. The issue of whether or not "you should not X" is completley understandable in all contexts is irrelevant; if I say "you should not kill" it is clearly moralistic, while saying "you should not ignore the teacher" is educational advice. There are instance where the statements might be vague, but for the most part they are presented in an obvious context or are explained. "You should not kill" or "killing is wrong" is a pretty clearly moralistic statement.

In the end, "correct/incorrect" are useless terms without a definitive Y. You can say X is incorrect while meaning that it is not in agreeance with a fictional reality in a fantasty book, even though X may be a very factual representation of reality.

Assume, for argument purposes, that we are talking about some strange world called X where peanuts grow on trees.

Saying "peanuts grow on trees" is still an incorrect statement.
Saying "If X were real, peanuts would grow on trees" is a correct statement.
Saying "peanuts do not grow on trees", even if you're still talking about the fantasy world, is an incorrect statement.
So everything has to be laid out for you in a strictly regimented, mechanical form for you to comprehend the statements? Too damn bad, I'll use context to understand meaning and you can fritter your time away wondering if every atomized statement has it's own validity. If you intend to niggle that much, you will be surprised at how many of your own statements are meaningless outside of context.

it is for that reason that I can say to you "it's wrong to kill people" and you will know, if you are like most people, that I'm talking about morality and not claiming that people never kill others.

The difference is, if you're saying "That's an incorrect application of X procedure," most people will continue what they're doing unless they actually want to adhere to that procedure. But a statement of "That's wrong" is nearly universally treated as a prescriptive - a command to do something else. Even though you say the sentence really means "That's incorrect in the context of my subjective morality (aka my rules of what I want people to do)," most people would do nothing if they heard that from someone; they don't care what some random person thinks about their actions. If you said "That's incorrect in the context of your subjective morality," they would also do nothing. It seems as though the entire idea of morality as a prescriptive is based on an objective, commanding standard for doing something that everyone knows about. Which there isn't.
When did I say there was?

Also, most people's moral rules are based on what they think is "right" and "wrong," not the other way around. You could say "That's incorrect in the context of my moral rules," but where do those moral rules come from besides what you personally want? If there's a higher "right" and "wrong" here, define that as well! "Right (correct)" cannot be used to describe an action in itself. There has to be a context of rules involved. So where do you start? With rules pulled out of your ass, or with some higher "right/wrong" at work independent of and predecessor to such rules, which already puts you in an incorrect usage of "right" anyway?
More whining about semantics. Your pseduophilosophical rantings are a joke. You take the dichotomy between two terms and attempt to use that to undermine an entire argument? You're mor einterested in debate than actually discussing things. Morals can't exist in your perfect, mechanical world. I'm glad I don't live there.

Oh, and while you're at it, define the word "should." Without in any way using "moral rules/code of conduct" or "What I want someone to do." Because the rules depend on what you think "should" happen, not the other way around. Right?
No; you define "rules," "depend," "conduct," and "word."

This bullshit could go on forever.

RevMARKSman

14th September 2007, 23:31

More whining about semantics. Your pseduophilosophical rantings are a joke. You take the dichotomy between two terms and attempt to use that to undermine an entire argument? You're mor einterested in debate than actually discussing things. Morals can't exist in your perfect, mechanical world. I'm glad I don't live there.

Oh. I'm sorry you can't actually argue this. And by the way, I'm actually a pretty emotional person. But thanks for playing.

No; you define "rules," "depend," "conduct," and "word."

This bullshit could go on forever.

Rules: Commands to act in a certain way.

Depend: To be contingent on another aspect of reality.

Conduct: Actions.

Word: A string of characters (written or spoken) understood to have a specific meaning or meanings. These sentences are made up of words.

Dean

15th September 2007, 00:09

Originally posted by RevMARKSman+September 14, 2007 10:31 pm--> (RevMARKSman @ September 14, 2007 10:31 pm)
More whining about semantics. Your pseduophilosophical rantings are a joke. You take the dichotomy between two terms and attempt to use that to undermine an entire argument? You're mor einterested in debate than actually discussing things. Morals can't exist in your perfect, mechanical world. I'm glad I don't live there.

Oh. I'm sorry you can't actually argue this. And by the way, I'm actually a pretty emotional person. But thanks for playing.
[/b]
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings; your sarcasm implied to me that you were tryingto be antagonistc. Maybe you just didn't notice it.

No; you define "rules," "depend," "conduct," and "word."

This bullshit could go on forever.

Rules: Commands to act in a certain way.
Perhaps... but that is hardly the rule for how the word is used.

Depend: To be contingent on another aspect of reality.

Conduct: Actions.
While looking further into the term, I found this interesting:

Dictionary.com
"mis·con·duct [n. mis-kon-duhkt; v. mis-kuhn-duhkt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. improper conduct; wrong behavior"
"Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006"

Would you say that the authors of Random House Dictionary '06 are making an incorrect or meaningless statement by conflating morality with "correctness"?

Word: A string of characters (written or spoken) understood to have a specific meaning or meanings. These sentences are made up of words.
What about unwritten language? Do words which have no written equivalent not exist as words?

Though my point about asking you to define the words was facetious, it brings out a good point. You can hardly define for certain what the terms mean, and yet your argument cannot be undermined simply by disputing a term.

We already established that 'incorrect' necessarily refers to a set of rules (and yes, material reality must be pointed out as an object before we can be certain that statements even refer to that). I explained my concept of morality as something people create in order to deal with themselves and others. I used "wrong" to describe inadherance to a set of norms one might come up with as a result of their moral development.

But, you chose to focus on what you think were weak points in my argument, and you usually ended up critiquing points I either didn't make or are irrelevant to the point itself.

In the end, you submitted that all 'incorrect' actions had a set of rules that they were incorrect in regards to - be that reality itself or a fictitious world. But then you claimed that my argument - "you should not kill people" is understand morally, while many statements (and even that one in certain context) need clarifications via context or direct explanation - was wrong, because I had to explain its context.

A telling example of your hypocrisy is in the "peanut tree" example. You say earlier that if a statement is false it must refer to an incorrect remark on reality. But when you say "peanuts don't grow on trees" you claim this is incorrect, I can only assume because the ruleset is undefined.

Unfortunately, or I would say fortunately, human language is not a programming language. While I can tell you this:

if x=y then y=x
and you'll understand it, the compiler requires

if(x=y) y=x;

Of course, the first one is imperfect. There is no period, possibly leaving a reader thinking "where is the rest of the statement" - but only if he is mechanical. This is how you've tried to argue the point. The statement "I should not kill" is a clearly moral one if given of itself, just as "a hypothesis is necessary for an accurate experiment" is clearly a reference to some kind of scientific study using the scientific method.

You can be reductionist to the point of saying "wrong" doesn't refer to morality enough in the context above, but that reductionism is the same thing that will result in a defeatist argument for every idea put foreward. You can always take language and say it is unclarified; it is an inherantly circular beast - that is, it relies on itself for its own definitions. No statement deals with each possible contingency for misunderstanding; they refer to common human experiences to get their meaning. You could argue all night that a statement is imperfect, and you'll always be right, because you can never define a term so succintly as to make it a material reality. It is nothing more than a carrier for human emotion, which one hopes will be the same for the recipient as it was for the messenger.

RevMARKSman

15th September 2007, 01:00

Check this out:

from dictionary.com

wrong /rɔŋ, rɒŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rawng, rong] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.

----------------------

right /raɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb, verb
–adjective
1. in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.

-------------------------------

just 1 (jŭst) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler. See Synonyms at fair1.
2. Consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.

----------------------------

good /gʊd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[good] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, bet·ter, best, noun, interjection, adverb
–adjective
1. morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man.

-----------------------------

prop·er /ˈprɒpər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prop-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. adapted or appropriate to the purpose or circumstances; fit; suitable: the proper time to plant strawberries.

So, we can either say what is "morally good" boils down to what you think is useful, or...

right·eous /ˈraɪtʃəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rahy-chuhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. characterized by uprightness or morality: a righteous observance of the law.
2. morally right or justifiable: righteous indignation.
3. acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous: a righteous and godly person.

---------------------------

up·right /ˈʌpˌraɪt, ʌpˈraɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhp-rahyt, uhp-rahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. erect or vertical, as in position or posture.
2. raised or directed vertically or upward.
3. adhering to rectitude; righteous, honest, or just: an upright person.
4. being in accord with what is right: upright dealings.

--------------------------

mor·al /ˈmɔrəl, ˈmɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mawr-uhl, mor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.

And we complete the circular definition-fest.

Would you say that the authors of Random House Dictionary '06 are making an incorrect or meaningless statement by conflating morality with "correctness"?

Yes. Morality is based on circular definitions. Language itself is circular, but defining a word such as "language" without using language is not very hard to do visually. You can't show someone the definition of "righteous" or "ethical" even on paper without using your own subjective rules for what you want people to do. Since those words are entirely subjectively defined, they have no objective definition and are thus meaningless.

Red Scare

15th September 2007, 01:10

i am an atheist, and really do i need a priest telling me what morals I should follow?

Dean

15th September 2007, 03:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 12:00 am
And we complete the circular definition-fest.
So? that was my point; every word is ultimately defined only in relation to other words.

Would you say that the authors of Random House Dictionary '06 are making an incorrect or meaningless statement by conflating morality with "correctness"?

Yes. Morality is based on circular definitions. Language itself is circular, but defining a word such as "language" without using language is not very hard to do visually. You can't show someone the definition of "righteous" or "ethical" even on paper without using your own subjective rules for what you want people to do. Since those words are entirely subjectively defined, they have no objective definition and are thus meaningless.

Really? All I said was that what is considered moral is what people think is socially correct. Besides the fact that all definitions are subjective, I don't see how defining morality is any more subjective unless you claim specific rules - which I never did.

I would challenge you to define words such as "definition," "mentality" "word," "what" etc. with only visual clues. You'll find that such a distinction is meaningless in regards to factuality; something can certainly exist as an idea or otherwise without visual clues being particularly useful in its explanation; and morality exists as both an idea and a force of social persuasion. Besides, I think 'morality' would be a lot easier to draw than 'what.'

You can use the same logic for every term than has a shred of vagueness to it; first, it is judged subjectively - this is apparent because, as it is vague, it needs to be defined further for each person than the definition they can give themselves. Once you establish subjective bias, your entire argument can be applied, and every term from "rock" to "weltanshauung" has become abstract and useless. We should just give up speaking if we are to take your criticisms seriously, since subjective bias - which exists in every term, like it or not - is apparently some kind of proof of nonexistance.

RevMARKSman

15th September 2007, 13:25

Really? All I said was that what is considered moral is what people think is socially correct.

Except that society isn't a set of rules that one can adhere to "correctly" or "incorrectly." It's a set of people.

Once you establish subjective bias, your entire argument can be applied, and every term from "rock" to "weltanshauung" has become abstract and useless. We should just give up speaking if we are to take your criticisms seriously, since subjective bias - which exists in every term, like it or not - is apparently some kind of proof of nonexistance.

99.9% of English speakers know what "rock" means. All of these people have overlapping definitions of "rock." "Wrong," (in the moral sense) however, is wildly different based on whom you talk to. It can't even be explained properly.

You steal something, someone tells you it's "wrong," and you don't do it again - but why? Is "wrong" only defined by what you don't personally do? Is it defined by what you want to do? What other people want you to do?

Dean

15th September 2007, 13:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 12:25 pm

Really? All I said was that what is considered moral is what people think is socially correct.

Except that society isn't a set of rules that one can adhere to "correctly" or "incorrectly." It's a set of people.
Neither is the scientific method, then. It's just a set of rules made up with certain hopes for how it is used.

Regardless, I didn't say "society," I said "socially incorrect" aka what a given individual thinks should and should not be done in the context of society.

Once you establish subjective bias, your entire argument can be applied, and every term from "rock" to "weltanshauung" has become abstract and useless. We should just give up speaking if we are to take your criticisms seriously, since subjective bias - which exists in every term, like it or not - is apparently some kind of proof of nonexistance.

99.9% of English speakers know what "rock" means. All of these people have overlapping definitions of "rock." "Wrong," (in the moral sense) however, is wildly different based on whom you talk to. It can't even be explained properly.

You steal something, someone tells you it's "wrong," and you don't do it again - but why? Is "wrong" only defined by what you don't personally do? Is it defined by what you want to do? What other people want you to do?
I know what you're rtrying to say. But the fact remains that to say something is wrong in a moral context is a refernce to rulesets that people make for themselves and society. You can say it "doesn't mean anything" but the fact that you have argued against the concept from the same persepctive of understanding as I shows that you see the same concept as I do. Yuo just want to go further than "there is no objective morality" but you don't know how to. So you keep coming up with things that discredit the concept of objective morality, but nothing that discredits the fact that individuals hold morals and use "wrong" to refer to inadherance to such.

RevMARKSman

15th September 2007, 13:58

Regardless, I didn't say "society," I said "socially incorrect"

which means "incorrect in the context of society" which assumes there must be rules of society to adhere to in the first place.

Neither is the scientific method, then. It's just a set of rules made up with certain hopes for how it is used.

The scientific method is a set of rules, that can be followed correctly or (not) followed incorrectly. These rules are followed by people because they want to acquire information (correct statements).

But the fact remains that to say something is wrong in a moral context is a refernce to rulesets that people make for themselves and society. You can say it "doesn't mean anything" but the fact that you have argued against the concept from the same persepctive of understanding as I shows that you see the same concept as I do. Yuo just want to go further than "there is no objective morality" but you don't know how to. So you keep coming up with things that discredit the concept of objective morality, but nothing that discredits the fact that individuals hold morals and use "wrong" to refer to inadherance to such.

So you're admitting that people pull these rules out of their ass, then? And that they pretend these rules are something other than just "things I want everyone to do because it makes me happy"?

Tell me why I would do something like that instead of actually doing what I want.

Dean

17th September 2007, 03:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 12:58 pm

Regardless, I didn't say "society," I said "socially incorrect"

which means "incorrect in the context of society" which assumes there must be rules of society to adhere to in the first place.
No, it assumes that people see society and devise rules with which to make it better, maintain it, etc., depending on their view of it.

Neither is the scientific method, then. It's just a set of rules made up with certain hopes for how it is used.

The scientific method is a set of rules, that can be followed correctly or (not) followed incorrectly. These rules are followed by people because they want to acquire information (correct statements).
So a ruleset does not have a correct way of being followed without that ruleset creating 'correct statements'? Can that ruleset not be followed correctly and yet result in accurate, correct statements? Does that not show to you that there are two positive statements there - the correctness of the adherance plus the correctness of the result - and therefore that those rulesets which do not result in information gathering specifically also describe action as correct or incorrect?

Consider the termination of wires in an electircal circuit. There is no statement being made. And yet, there is a clearly correct and incorrect fashion with which to install a circuit. Just like in morality. It just so happens that morality is a subjective ruleset unless a group have defined specific morals which all adhere to; so there can be an action which is correct for some and incorrect for others.

Coincidentally, I know a person who was a construction worker in Iraq. He was told to set up circuitry in fashions which were not only dangerous, but often useless. Was he doing it correctly? Yes. Was he doing it incorrectly? Yes, also. It was by his local authority, the contractor, that he was doing it correctly. However, according to the laws of electricity, or NECA standards, he was doing an incorrect job.

But the fact remains that to say something is wrong in a moral context is a refernce to rulesets that people make for themselves and society. You can say it "doesn't mean anything" but the fact that you have argued against the concept from the same persepctive of understanding as I shows that you see the same concept as I do. Yuo just want to go further than "there is no objective morality" but you don't know how to. So you keep coming up with things that discredit the concept of objective morality, but nothing that discredits the fact that individuals hold morals and use "wrong" to refer to inadherance to such.

So you're admitting that people pull these rules out of their ass, then? And that they pretend these rules are something other than just "things I want everyone to do because it makes me happy"?

Tell me why I would do something like that instead of actually doing what I want.
First off, you would because you are a part of society and as such you subsume some of your thinkign patterns into a social organization which has encourgaed you to think how it does. This is apparent in how people think of terms specifically; 'bugger' has a different meanign in different cultures, but it is only in subsuming your mentality into a certain set of 'stimulus - response' (among other) patterns that you can grab a hold of these norms and make them part of your own thinking, ideas, and activity.

Secondly, I do not claim anywhere that morals are pulled out of the ass. They all are created, just like all ideas, with some logical reasoning behind them, even though that reasoning is often not particularly rational or sane. They are often created by defense of actions, in fact, Marx would say this (a transition from 'Conditions -> Actions -> Morality' is described in his and other author's books). Morality is not just a random set of rules for actions that people have; it is specifically related to ideas and things people consider deeply relevant to themselves, society, or the livelihood of either of the two. Why you should do these things I cannot tell you; some are pretty obvious ("do not murder") while others are either downright wrong, disagreeable or irrelevant. But to dismiss morality by saying that there is no objective reason for it is stupid, and technocratic; we cannot simply follow logic and reason without recognizing the human element to these things. The relevance of the human being is not qualifiable in a logical statement, because it is little more than defense of the self and perception of other 'selves' in soiety. That hardly means we should ignore it.

hajduk

17th September 2007, 13:30

PEOPLE DONT BELIEVE IN GOD who is week,without power,who not heal,which dont give hope,dont give secure,in god who dont courrige us,dont protect us,who dont cover our asses in danger situations,in god who dont have mercy so is not cappable to forgive,in god who doesnt exist and and who is tricky and who is not give weekly mercy in malls,in god who have short breath so he cant follow us becouse he is shortlegged becouse he is a liar,people dont believe in god who ordered to you to love others and give you permittion to speak when he wants and told you to salute,
in god who dont maintain spirit in malls for relefs of the syn,people dont believe in god who will in blink clean the dirt under the roug,hipocrisy,monopoly system,people dont believe in god who is involved in politic,other people bedrooms,plates,purses,sense,councehnes,in god who dont blessing bombs,guns and thiefes,good tax donations and in god who dont open public toilets and elevators
that kind of god actualy doesnt exist

RevMARKSman

18th September 2007, 00:52

But to dismiss morality by saying that there is no objective reason for it is stupid, and technocratic; we cannot simply follow logic and reason without recognizing the human element to these things. The relevance of the human being is not qualifiable in a logical statement, because it is little more than defense of the self and perception of other 'selves' in soiety. That hardly means we should ignore it.

It does not mean we "should" pay attention to it either.

Consider the termination of wires in an electircal circuit. There is no statement being made. And yet, there is a clearly correct and incorrect fashion with which to install a circuit.

No, there isn't. There is a specific way that one can install the circuit to actually work. When you know someone wants the circuit to work and thinks it will work, but is installing the circuit in a way that keeps it from working, it is incorrect - he believes an incorrect statement (that one can assemble the circuit that way and still have it work). Most people assume that this person wants the circuit to work and thinks it will work, and just skip to the "that's incorrect" part.

However, if you see me littering, I won't stop if you say "That's incorrect" because I never thought you'd like it - I don't even care about following your rules in the first place, so there's no risk of me having misconceptions about what I'm doing.

No, it assumes that people see society and devise rules with which to make it better, maintain it, etc., depending on their view of it.

And most of these damn rules contradict each other! Everyone wants people to do different things! So everything is "socially correct" from someone's point of view. One can say "That's wrong (socially incorrect)" but it really comes down to "someone wants you to stop doing that (usually me)." These rules are no more than what people want others and/or themselves to do.

Dean

18th September 2007, 01:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 11:52 pm

But to dismiss morality by saying that there is no objective reason for it is stupid, and technocratic; we cannot simply follow logic and reason without recognizing the human element to these things. The relevance of the human being is not qualifiable in a logical statement, because it is little more than defense of the self and perception of other 'selves' in soiety. That hardly means we should ignore it.

It does not mean we "should" pay attention to it either.
Right. We should ignore our internal desire to defend ourselves and other humans.

Consider the termination of wires in an electircal circuit. There is no statement being made. And yet, there is a clearly correct and incorrect fashion with which to install a circuit.

No, there isn't. There is a specific way that one can install the circuit to actually work. When you know someone wants the circuit to work and thinks it will work, but is installing the circuit in a way that keeps it from working, it is incorrect - he believes an incorrect statement (that one can assemble the circuit that way and still have it work). Most people assume that this person wants the circuit to work and thinks it will work, and just skip to the "that's incorrect" part.
So psychological responses don't count, but electrical currents do?

If my desire is to satiate my moral drives, and I do something that fails to live up to those morals I have set for myself, I have certainly incorrectly actuated a drive.

As I said before, rules one sets for themselves are still rules, and there are correct and incorrect fashions of obeying them.

However, if you see me littering, I won't stop if you say "That's incorrect" because I never thought you'd like it - I don't even care about following your rules in the first place, so there's no risk of me having misconceptions about what I'm doing.
It's good to know that you come to the table with no interests in what other people would like.

No, it assumes that people see society and devise rules with which to make it better, maintain it, etc., depending on their view of it.

And most of these damn rules contradict each other! Everyone wants people to do different things! So everything is "socially correct" from someone's point of view. One can say "That's wrong (socially incorrect)" but it really comes down to "someone wants you to stop doing that (usually me)." These rules are no more than what people want others and/or themselves to do.
Really? Did I not say that numerous times already?

And yet, they still matter to people. It's sad that you don't care about human interests; I, for one, do, regardless of their consistancy. That is, after all, the drive to be a social human.

Dean

18th September 2007, 01:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:30 pm
PEOPLE DONT BELIEVE IN GOD who is week,without power,who not heal,which dont give hope,dont give secure,in god who dont courrige us,dont protect us,who dont cover our asses in danger situations,in god who dont have mercy so is not cappable to forgive,in god who doesnt exist and and who is tricky and who is not give weekly mercy in malls,in god who have short breath so he cant follow us becouse he is shortlegged becouse he is a liar,people dont believe in god who ordered to you to love others and give you permittion to speak when he wants and told you to salute,
in god who dont maintain spirit in malls for relefs of the syn,people dont believe in god who will in blink clean the dirt under the roug,hipocrisy,monopoly system,people dont believe in god who is involved in politic,other people bedrooms,plates,purses,sense,councehnes,in god who dont blessing bombs,guns and thiefes,good tax donations and in god who dont open public toilets and elevators
that kind of god actualy doesnt exist
What does this... lyric? have to do with the thread?

Comrade Rage

18th September 2007, 01:45

Originally posted by DEAN---of all people
What does this... lyric? have to do with the thread? It's a good point. Besides, you really veer off topic all the time.

People have killed more in the name of a god, than for any other cause. I'd say atheists are a LOOTTT more ethical than religious folk, with some exceptions.

Dean

18th September 2007, 01:56

Originally posted by COMRADE CUM+September 18, 2007 12:45 am--> (COMRADE CUM @ September 18, 2007 12:45 am)
DEAN---of all people
What does this... lyric? have to do with the thread? It's a good point. Besides, you really veer off topic all the time.

People have killed more in the name of a god, than for any other cause. I'd say atheists are a LOOTTT more ethical than religious folk, with some exceptions. [/b]
Sounds like you're veering off topic.

People kill in the name of god because they are either using religion as a means to muster power against an oppressive force or encourage random people to fight for the interests of the elite, usually backed by the religious authorities. But, it is not the cause of religion; religion is simply the means of control.

I won't be so judgemental to try to say that atheists are more moral than the religious. I have seen equally vile acts committed by both the religious and non.

I always stick to topic as much as I can. I am not *****ing about God in this thread; in fact, God has nothing to do with the discussion between me and RevMARKSman. But, please, enlighten me as to where I have 'veered off topic all the time.' Maybe you're just too goddamn stupid to understand how statements logically from from each other?

You have nothing to contribute but an "of all people" [?] and a dumb-ass remark about how atheists are somehow morally superior to religous people. I'd say you're a 'LOOTTT' more of an irrelevant idiot than I am.

Comrade Rage

18th September 2007, 02:10

Originally posted by freaking Dean+--> (freaking Dean)People kill in the name of god because they are either using religion as a means to muster power against an oppressive force[/b]

:huh:

I guess that when the 'Christian Soldiers' of Spain conquered the Americas they were oppressed too huh??

You just may be a LOOTTT more of a religious extremist fundy. Knock off.

Dean
I'd say you're a 'LOOTTT' more of an irrelevant idiot than I am.

Comrade Rage

18th September 2007, 02:13

The of all people is because you are preachy and arrogant.

My apologies for offending the exalted Dean.

Dean

18th September 2007, 03:12

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+September 18, 2007 01:10 am--> (COMRADE CRUM @ September 18, 2007 01:10 am)
Originally posted by freaking Dean+--> (freaking Dean)People kill in the name of god because they are either using religion as a means to muster power against an oppressive force[/b]

:huh:

I guess that when the 'Christian Soldiers' of Spain conquered the Americas they were oppressed too huh?? [/b]
No, I would say that they were trying to

From Dean the part you intentionally [email protected]
encourage random people to fight for the interests of the elite, usually backed by the religious authorities.

You just may be a LOOTTT more of a religious extremist fundy. Knock off.

Dean
I'd say you're a 'LOOTTT' more of an irrelevant idiot than I am.

I am actually a LOOTTT more of an atheist.

The of all people is because you are preachy and arrogant.
It's hard not to be arrogant in the face of arrogance. Look at the trolls in OI; Jazzrat, Vinny Rafarino, Invader Zim, all are very arrogant, preachy, and hateful. At least I'm not xenophobic...

My apologies for offending the exalted Dean.
You know, you should apologise, considering there was no place for you to attack me. I has said nothing against you. And I would accept your apology, and give you one in return, if you were at all serious about trying to be respectful and open rather than attacking me.

Oh hell. I'll be the better man. I'm sorry I sunk to your level.

Comrade Rage

18th September 2007, 03:29

Actually, although I did not get the chance earlier, I did wish to apologize to you, as I do now. My last couple of posts were shrill, and not totally based on fact. For this I sincerely apologize. :blush:

Dean

18th September 2007, 13:25

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 18, 2007 02:29 am
Actually, although I did not get the chance earlier, I did wish to apologize to you, as I do now. My last couple of posts were shrill, and not totally based on fact. For this I sincerely apologize. :blush:
Alright comrade. Let's try to keep amicable, then, there are enough trolls pissing me off here to fight with people who don't mean bad :)

(and I do apologise, the last one was kind've sarcastic)

counterblast

18th September 2007, 14:42

Consider the termination of wires in an electircal circuit. There is no statement being made. And yet, there is a clearly correct and incorrect fashion with which to install a circuit. Just like in morality. It just so happens that morality is a subjective ruleset unless a group have defined specific morals which all adhere to; so there can be an action which is correct for some and incorrect for others.

Not true. Notice how modern electrical circuits are more advanced and differ in design from primitive ones... These days not only are they more powerful and cost efficient, now you've got solutions to more au courant problems with added innovations like current regulators/meters, surge protectors, and emergency generators.

Morality is the exact same way, it changes to cope with problems affecting contemporary culture, as past solutions become inefficient or obsolete entirely.

That isn't to say everyone finds all of these new innovations necessary, per se, and many opt to keep to something more simple, that is less complex and easier to understand.

EDIT: Furthermore, notice that electrical circuitry is just a complex accumulation of materials, that an individual could utilise in any way he/she wished.

Dean

18th September 2007, 21:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:42 pm

Consider the termination of wires in an electircal circuit. There is no statement being made. And yet, there is a clearly correct and incorrect fashion with which to install a circuit. Just like in morality. It just so happens that morality is a subjective ruleset unless a group have defined specific morals which all adhere to; so there can be an action which is correct for some and incorrect for others.

Not true. Notice how modern electrical circuits are more advanced and differ in design from primitive ones... These days not only are they more powerful and cost efficient, now you've got solutions to more au courant problems with added innovations like current regulators/meters, surge protectors, and emergency generators.

Morality is the exact same way, it changes to cope with problems affecting contemporary culture, as past solutions become inefficient or obsolete entirely.

That isn't to say everyone finds all of these new innovations necessary, per se, and many opt to keep to something more simple, that is less complex and easier to understand.
What is "Not true"? Are you saying that a statement is being made in the electrical problem? I don't see how what you have said (which I agree with) goes against what I've said.

EDIT: Furthermore, notice that electrical circuitry is just a complex accumulation of materials, that an individual could utilise in any way he/she wished.
This furthermore proves that there is not a certain correct or incorrect fashon of terminating wires, except when we are judging it by NECA standards (what I was referring to, I just forgot to put it in the first paragraph on circuitry). It's correctness is judged subjectively, on what the interests of the person terminating the wires is. The same is true for morality; the person who holds the given morals judges, subjectively, what constitutes a correct or incorrect fashion of adhering to the morals.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

19th September 2007, 13:00

You don't need god or religion to have a functioning set of morals. Enlightened self-interest is usually enough. Consider the question of murder, and why it would be wrong in an atheist society. I do not want to live in a society where I have a significant risk of being murdered. Therefore it is in my own self-interest that I consider murder to be immoral, and encourage others to to think in the same way.

There is another angle, society - just how well would a society that tolerates murder function? Not very well, as a society that tolerates murder would have people dropping dead left right and centre as people would have no compunction in murdering rivals, enemies, bullies, those weaker than themselves etc. Therefore, in order for a society to function, it would have to proscribe against murder.

Thos are just two good reasons for proscribing murder, and I didn't have to invoke God or religion in either of them. I simply applied reasoning to the situation. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that rational thought cannot be applied to other moral areas.

Therefore, as a source of morals, god and religion come a very poor second best, as not only do they fail to use reasoning, instead threatening those who do not hold to the religious morality with eternal torture in the next world (A poor form of enforcement if I ever saw one), but they also tend to be inflexible in the extreme, never changing to fit changing societal circumstances or even take into account the never-stopping march of technology, which in itself can induce changes in the moral zeitgeist.

And thus, the question is answered: Atheists get their morals by reasoning, whether it be on the matter of society or simple enlightened self-interest, or possibly other means. It also seems to be where most modern societies get their morals from, as very few of them include the death penalty for worshipping other gods*, as Abrahamic morals do.

(*Or for that matter, adultery, cheeking your parents, bestiality etc etc)

And there you have it. No tortured philsophical lines of thought, no awkward analogies, simply a powerful marriage of reasoning and plain language. Obfuscation is what keeps philosophers and theologians in work.

counterblast

19th September 2007, 20:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:43 pm
What is "Not true"? Are you saying that a statement is being made in the electrical problem? I don't see how what you have said (which I agree with) goes against what I've said.
I'm saying that this statement is "Not true";

And yet, there is a clearly correct and incorrect fashion with which to install a circuit.

While I agree that there is "no clear statement being made", I disagree with the assertion that any apparent boundaries of correctness/incorrectness exist.

Even set boundaries are rarely to never black and white. Instead, they often vary by circumstance, chance, personal interpretation, and other factors in a conflicting "gray" area.

Labor Shall Rule

20th September 2007, 06:33

I think the pursuit of pleasure and circumvention of pain is the beginning and end of morality. I think that, in anyone pursuing socialism, they are recognizing that it is good; that it is more rational, equal, and just than the current state of affairs. Marx, though he was a materialist, had abstained from associating himself with religious thought, when in reality, his entire critique of the capitalist system, as well as the social organization that would replace it, was grounded on the basis that he had a moralistic approach to what he was in contact with, which was children having their arms snapped in half by textile machines, slum-dweller junkies drinking their lives away in their urine-stenched, uncleaned tenements, and women strangling their own infants because they can not afford to even feed them. It is a form of universal morality that has been passed down and inherited for centuries.

To view the current system as twisted, dehumanizing, and unnatural is to break with the materialist notion that we are in a meaningless and isolated universe. This feeling of indigination is derived from our nature as human beings, which was inherited through centuries of many cultures through their own historical epochs; through sociological and biological development as homosapiens, the conception that we must attain our needs, whether we are in a tribal society fighting for a herd of ox to feed the village, or we are in Sparta and enslaving the Helots because we are not raising large agricultural yields to feed our warriors, we are all struggling on the basis that we are conscious, rational human beings trying to attain the needs of our people, which presupposes the significance that there is a sort of supreme being that has given us set ethics.

If you deduct it to 'instinct', then you admit that you do not consciously introspect a situation before you act. If you deduct it to 'instinct', then you admit that you simply act, rather than thinking first. If its just a chemical reaction that was depicted in biology class, then there is no reason to do something charitable, or revolutionary, if it is not in my immediate interests. Things are not arbitrary, they are either morally right or wrong, and what determines that is beyond the realm of the material world.

Dean

20th September 2007, 22:24

Originally posted by counterblast+September 19, 2007 07:48 pm--> (counterblast @ September 19, 2007 07:48 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 08:43 pm
What is "Not true"? Are you saying that a statement is being made in the electrical problem? I don't see how what you have said (which I agree with) goes against what I've said.
I'm saying that this statement is "Not true"; [/b]
This one: "Are you saying that a statement is being made in the electrical problem?"?
If so, I agree. There is no statement being made. Otherwise, please explain what statement you were referring to.

And yet, there is a clearly correct and incorrect fashion with which to install a circuit.

While I agree that there is "no clear statement being made", I disagree with the assertion that any apparent boundaries of correctness/incorrectness exist.
There do, in the examples I gave earlier to RevMARKSman: NECA standards and the rules of circuitry (i.e. attaching a wire to another one when that will complete the circuit) act as rulesets.

You can say "In reference to the NECA standards, I have not correctly terminated the wires when I put a ground wire in the terminal in which a hot wire should go." Or, "in reference to my understanding of circuitry (a ruleset) I put a hot wire in a grounding terminal, and therefore incorrectly terminated that wire."

Both examples are legitimate uses of the term "incorrect"; they refer to rulesets. Just as language is a ruleset, and saying "I writes a poem and the notebook was what I put it in" has two incorrect usages of words.

Even set boundaries are rarely to never black and white. Instead, they often vary by circumstance, chance, personal interpretation, and other factors in a conflicting "gray" area.
You are correct. But this also applies to all sciences, becuse we are limited by our senses, faith in the tools used, etc., in being certain that our findings are true. It is clear that morals are much more subjective, uncertain, and often conflicting, but that doesn't rule out that 'incorrect' can be used to refer to actions which don't conform to a perceived set of morals. It is perception by which people judge correctness of moral adherance, so the correctness of a said action is judged by those morals. It may be an incorrect assessment of the moral ruleset the given person has, but it is still a correct / incorrect dichotomy, be its findings reasonable or not in a given circumstance.

RevMARKSman

23rd September 2007, 02:03

Originally posted by Dean+September 17, 2007 07:31 pm--> (Dean @ September 17, 2007 07:31 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 11:52 pm

But to dismiss morality by saying that there is no objective reason for it is stupid, and technocratic; we cannot simply follow logic and reason without recognizing the human element to these things. The relevance of the human being is not qualifiable in a logical statement, because it is little more than defense of the self and perception of other 'selves' in soiety. That hardly means we should ignore it.

It does not mean we "should" pay attention to it either.
Right. We should ignore our internal desire to defend ourselves and other humans.

Consider the termination of wires in an electircal circuit. There is no statement being made. And yet, there is a clearly correct and incorrect fashion with which to install a circuit.

No, there isn't. There is a specific way that one can install the circuit to actually work. When you know someone wants the circuit to work and thinks it will work, but is installing the circuit in a way that keeps it from working, it is incorrect - he believes an incorrect statement (that one can assemble the circuit that way and still have it work). Most people assume that this person wants the circuit to work and thinks it will work, and just skip to the "that's incorrect" part.
So psychological responses don't count, but electrical currents do?

If my desire is to satiate my moral drives, and I do something that fails to live up to those morals I have set for myself, I have certainly incorrectly actuated a drive.

As I said before, rules one sets for themselves are still rules, and there are correct and incorrect fashions of obeying them.

However, if you see me littering, I won't stop if you say "That's incorrect" because I never thought you'd like it - I don't even care about following your rules in the first place, so there's no risk of me having misconceptions about what I'm doing.
It's good to know that you come to the table with no interests in what other people would like.

No, it assumes that people see society and devise rules with which to make it better, maintain it, etc., depending on their view of it.

And most of these damn rules contradict each other! Everyone wants people to do different things! So everything is "socially correct" from someone's point of view. One can say "That's wrong (socially incorrect)" but it really comes down to "someone wants you to stop doing that (usually me)." These rules are no more than what people want others and/or themselves to do.
Really? Did I not say that numerous times already?

And yet, they still matter to people. It's sad that you don't care about human interests; I, for one, do, regardless of their consistancy. That is, after all, the drive to be a social human. [/b]

So psychological responses don't count, but electrical currents do? If my desire is to satiate my moral drives, and I do something that fails to live up to those morals I have set for myself, I have certainly incorrectly actuated a drive.

I'll take this as an admission that you ultimately do this whole "morality" thing to make yourself happy/satisfied. So why bother with calling it "morality" in the first place? Why not eliminate the maze of rules and terminology and do what you ultimately want?

It's good to know that you come to the table with no interests in what other people would like.

Yeah, it's actually a lot of fun.

That is, after all, the drive to be a social human.

Or not necessarily concern, but a psychological need for company.

Right. We should ignore our internal desire to defend ourselves and other humans.

Or we can make strawmen of our opponents' arguments.

I never used the word "should."

Dean

25th September 2007, 20:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 01:03 am

It's good to know that you come to the table with no interests in what other people would like.

Yeah, it's actually a lot of fun.
lovely.

That is, after all, the drive to be a social human.

Or not necessarily concern, but a psychological need for company.
To be a social human is also to be concerned with the interests of others. You can't be social just by sitting beside someone; it requires interaction, which inherantly interests itself in the interests of the person you are interacting with. You don't have to agree with that person's ideas to care about them, but if you interact with them you must care about the ideas.

Right. We should ignore our internal desire to defend ourselves and other humans.

Or we can make strawmen of our opponents' arguments.

I never used the word "should."
So what was meant when you said

It does not mean we "should" pay attention to it either.
?

Or were you trying to make a statement which, by your logic, has no meaning?

RevMARKSman

25th September 2007, 23:46

So what was meant when you said
QUOTE
It does not mean we "should" pay attention to it either.

?

Or were you trying to make a statement which, by your logic, has no meaning?

I was. "Should" has no meaning and thus any statement using "should" is automatically meaningless.

lovely.

One-word response.

To be a social human is also to be concerned with the interests of others. You can't be social just by sitting beside someone; it requires interaction, which inherantly interests itself in the interests of the person you are interacting with. You don't have to agree with that person's ideas to care about them, but if you interact with them you must care about the ideas.

No, you don't have to. You only need to actually want to interact with the person, which comes from the brain, maybe a psychological function, maybe because you want to argue, whatever. You don't need to identify with anyone to have a conversation.

Dean

26th September 2007, 03:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:46 pm

So what was meant when you said

It does not mean we "should" pay attention to it either.

?

Or were you trying to make a statement which, by your logic, has no meaning?

I was. "Should" has no meaning and thus any statement using "should" is automatically meaningless.
Why should I believe that?

lovely.

One-word response.
Defeatist argument.

To be a social human is also to be concerned with the interests of others. You can't be social just by sitting beside someone; it requires interaction, which inherantly interests itself in the interests of the person you are interacting with. You don't have to agree with that person's ideas to care about them, but if you interact with them you must care about the ideas.

No, you don't have to. You only need to actually want to interact with the person, which comes from the brain, maybe a psychological function, maybe because you want to argue, whatever.
Psychological functions include "want to argue." And interacting with others does necessarily concern the person with the interests of the other person. The interaction - or input - from person A is received, processed, and responded to by person B, and all threee of these neural actions indicate an interest in the interaction, or interests, of person A by person B. You cannot be uninterested in a person and interact with them; some degree of interest in their activity is required for a response to be achieved. If I didn't care about your statement X, I would have no stimulation or response to X. You are obviously interested in my ideas because you respond to them; if you did not interact with me, that would mean that you did not even read my words.

You don't need to identify with anyone to have a conversation.
You do, to an extent, but this is a slightly different argument surrounding similar concepts. The other one refers to interaction, while this one refers to social categorization, assuming you mean what I think you do. Regardless, the reason it is a necessary aspect is because of that aforementioned interest, coupled with a linguistic syncronization. If I did not care about your ideas, I would not identify with any aspect of them. I cannot view your ideas as totally foreign to me and still have any compassion for them; I must expect that in some way or another, your ideas are understood by me (and therefore I identify with them) for me to have an interest in responding to them. Surely, I can interact with you and still not identify with you, but to have a real conversation, that is, to take in, syncronize and respond to ideas, I must relate them to (syncronize them with) ideas in my mind. That is a form of identification to a given human, even if you only identify with them insofar as you think that that person is discussing the same idea as you are.

RevMARKSman

27th September 2007, 22:09

Why should I believe that?

You are capable of choosing to believe something or not. However, that does not change its truth value.

Psychological functions include "want to argue." And interacting with others does necessarily concern the person with the interests of the other person. The interaction - or input - from person A is received, processed, and responded to by person B, and all threee of these neural actions indicate an interest in the interaction, or interests, of person A by person B. You cannot be uninterested in a person and interact with them; some degree of interest in their activity is required for a response to be achieved. If I didn't care about your statement X, I would have no stimulation or response to X. You are obviously interested in my ideas because you respond to them; if you did not interact with me, that would mean that you did not even read my words.

yeah. But only to the point where this debate makes me happy. If it's no longer fun, I'll stop. I have no "selfless" interest in your ideas.

That is a form of identification to a given human, even if you only identify with them insofar as you think that that person is discussing the same idea as you are.

And so ultimately your identification with that person is based on yourself.

Defeatist argument.

Irrelevant name-calling.

Dean

27th September 2007, 23:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 09:09 pm

Why should I believe that?

You are capable of choosing to believe something or not. However, that does not change its truth value.
That's a surprisingly logical answer to a "meaningless" statement.

It's clear, RevMARKSman, that "should" has a definite linguistic meaning. I agree that it does not necessarily follow that one should do this or that if the term is used correctly, but you have to face the fact that in nearly every statement you make, there is an underlying message that "you should believe [statement X]." It has meaning.

Psychological functions include "want to argue." And interacting with others does necessarily concern the person with the interests of the other person. The interaction - or input - from person A is received, processed, and responded to by person B, and all threee of these neural actions indicate an interest in the interaction, or interests, of person A by person B. You cannot be uninterested in a person and interact with them; some degree of interest in their activity is required for a response to be achieved. If I didn't care about your statement X, I would have no stimulation or response to X. You are obviously interested in my ideas because you respond to them; if you did not interact with me, that would mean that you did not even read my words.

yeah. But only to the point where this debate makes me happy. If it's no longer fun, I'll stop. I have no "selfless" interest in your ideas.
At what point did I describe a "selfless interest"?? I have never gone even close to making such statements. I believe it is in our reasonable self interest to have a moral code which is productive and associative with society. But still, your point (ignoring the disparity between my terms and your "happy" and "fun" terminology) is in no way contradictory to my point. The quoted is not a specifically moral argument; indeed it relates to the point, but it is an exterior explanation of a broad spectrum of human drives.

That is a form of identification to a given human, even if you only identify with them insofar as you think that that person is discussing the same idea as you are.

And so ultimately your identification with that person is based on yourself.
Right. All identification, be it of complicated scientific theory, human relations, or simply "i think therefore I am" is based on oneself. It is based on psychological conditions and ideas native to your own mind, which are a part of yourself.

Defeatist argument.

Irrelevant name-calling.
Are you defending the statement or yourself? Because I never called you anything.

Anyways, the entire point was to show that your response to my disgust at a disinterest in others' ideas was meaningless, et. al..

I could have, for instance, replied "three word response" to this snippet and it would carry just as much weight as your earlier statement.

RevMARKSman

28th September 2007, 00:21

It's clear, RevMARKSman, that "should" has a definite linguistic meaning. I agree that it does not necessarily follow that one should do this or that if the term is used correctly, but you have to face the fact that in nearly every statement you make, there is an underlying message that "you should believe [statement X]." It has meaning.

I read that statement as "Why would I believe that?" Generally, people believe things because they are true. Sometimes, people believe things even though they know they are false, but manage to shift that fact to the back of their heads. So, you ultimately have a choice to believe my (true) statement or not. I can't tell you why you would believe it, because ultimately I can't read your mind.

At what point did I describe a "selfless interest"?? I have never gone even close to making such statements. I believe it is in our reasonable self interest to have a moral code which is productive and associative with society.

What motivation could I possibly have to make a "moral code" instead of doing what is in my self-interest in the first place? Isn't a "moral code" just another name for what's in your self-interest? If so, why would anyone call it a "moral code"?

Dean

28th September 2007, 00:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:21 pm

It's clear, RevMARKSman, that "should" has a definite linguistic meaning. I agree that it does not necessarily follow that one should do this or that if the term is used correctly, but you have to face the fact that in nearly every statement you make, there is an underlying message that "you should believe [statement X]." It has meaning.

I read that statement as "Why would I believe that?" Generally, people believe things because they are true. Sometimes, people believe things even though they know they are false, but manage to shift that fact to the back of their heads. So, you ultimately have a choice to believe my (true) statement or not. I can't tell you why you would believe it, because ultimately I can't read your mind.
Why did you translate a "meaningless term" into one describing cause and effect?

If the term has no meaning, you would treat it as such. Yet somehow, you understand it. That is quite a paradox, if someone is to take your statements literally.

I don't think you're that dumb, though. I think you understood that should refers to an ideal statement of cause and effect, and that's why you answered it in such a manner - still, however, in reference to that ideal and not objective reality. After all, you're talking about what someone should think, not what they would think. Person A would think that 1+1=3 if they were brainwashed, or mistaught. But should they? As I have tried to point out, should (or morality) refers to a set of standards, be it reality or human interaction. Would, however, ignores ideals when used correctly - that is, all ideals except for the ideal of reality.

At what point did I describe a "selfless interest"?? I have never gone even close to making such statements. I believe it is in our reasonable self interest to have a moral code which is productive and associative with society.

What motivation could I possibly have to make a "moral code" instead of doing what is in my self-interest in the first place? Isn't a "moral code" just another name for what's in your self-interest? If so, why would anyone call it a "moral code"?
Linguistic convention, ideological distinctions, etc...

I can't tell you why you should make a moral code. That would be contradictory to the very point of having a moral code, at least from the stance of mine. It might be better for you to think of moral codes as actuated self interest whereas self - interest is the internal drive towards pre-determined values.

RevMARKSman

29th September 2007, 00:11

If the term has no meaning, you would treat it as such. Yet somehow, you understand it. That is quite a paradox, if someone is to take your statements literally.

I don't think you're that dumb, though. I think you understood that should refers to an ideal statement of cause and effect, and that's why you answered it in such a manner - still, however, in reference to that ideal and not objective reality. After all, you're talking about what someone should think, not what they would think.

Um, no. I'm giving you reasons why you would accept my statement, and I'm telling you that I want you to accept my statement. So, really, if you're going to define "should" as "would, if I had my way" - then what reasons would you have to say "should" and mix yourself up with the moral objectivists?

Linguistic convention, ideological distinctions, etc...

Screw that, I'm saying what I mean.

It might be better for you to think of moral codes as actuated self interest whereas self - interest is the internal drive towards pre-determined values.

"Better"?

^ Ignore that. Moving on.
Self-interest is the internal drive towards one's own happiness, and no other values whatsoever. If something makes me unhappy, and I can stop it without bringing myself more unhappiness, I will try to stop it, period. If you've got other values that take precedence over making yourself happy, that's not self-interest at all.

Dean

29th September 2007, 07:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 11:11 pm

If the term has no meaning, you would treat it as such. Yet somehow, you understand it. That is quite a paradox, if someone is to take your statements literally.

I don't think you're that dumb, though. I think you understood that should refers to an ideal statement of cause and effect, and that's why you answered it in such a manner - still, however, in reference to that ideal and not objective reality. After all, you're talking about what someone should think, not what they would think.

Um, no. I'm giving you reasons why you would accept my statement, and I'm telling you that I want you to accept my statement. So, really, if you're going to define "should" as "would, if I had my way" - then what reasons would you have to say "should" and mix yourself up with the moral objectivists?
I'll assume you misunderstood my statement, because it was really quite in line with a few you made earlier in this thread. I'll just re-word it:

By saying "I want you to accept my statement" you are describing a should statement. A would statement would read "you will agree with me if I give you this statement." A should statement refers to ideal desires and value systems, whereas a would statement refers to objective cause and effect. I.E. the distinction between ideal and [/i] cause and effect mentioned earlier.

Let's assume the statement "I love you," from Person A to Person B, without any significant external modifiers to it.

The statement is asking Person B to accept the statement. It begs, "you should believe that I love you." But it also gives a qualifier for that love, why one would believe that they are loved. That qualifier is the existance and actuation of the statement itself.

In other words, if I say, "I love you," I am asking you to believe me - why else would I say it, assuming all conditions which may change the implied motive are absent? And I am also giving you that reason to believe you are loved: faith in my words. When people speak (again assuming conditions are normal) the reason a person expects another to believe him lays in the existance of the statement.

Of course, none of this proves that one should believe another person, or that they will, in any given cicumstance. It's simply an explanation of what the terms mean.

Linguistic convention, ideological distinctions, etc...

Screw that, I'm saying what I mean.
I never told you to speak differently; indeed, I wouldn't want you to say something you didn't believe. I just tried to explain why others use terms you don't think have meaning.

It might be better for you to think of moral codes as actuated self interest whereas self - interest is the internal drive towards pre-determined values.

"Better"?
This is where you continually fail to understand my logic. I guess it has to do with me being more laid back and assuming that you'll take my statements in good faith, or understand them. Or maybe you're just trying to challenge me.

'Better' here clearly means "more conducive to an understanding between you and I." What is the end of this conversation? ...to understand each other, and enlighten each other, at least in my view. So it is better when you understand my terminology, and as such I described the terminology with the pretext that it would be better for you to understand it before passing the judgement to which I was responding.

^ Ignore that. Moving on.
You're quite rash at ignoring central themes of a debate.

Self-interest is the internal drive towards one's own happiness, and no other values whatsoever. If something makes me unhappy, and I can stop it without bringing myself more unhappiness, I will try to stop it, period. If you've got other values that take precedence over making yourself happy, that's not self-interest at all.
Considering your disdain for linguistic explanations of psychological functions, I find it surprising that you use the term "happiness" as an argument. I will point out that 'happiness' is a very vague word, and what I think you are referring to, harmony and contentment with oneself, is hardly a purely pleasurable experience. If you think it is based solely on pleasure (hedonism, perhaps) then I cannot agree on that concept of self-interest. Self interest, to me, is an interest in the internal functions of one's mind, and how that mind relates to the brain, the body, and finally the external world. Many things like social association, hunger, sexuality, and passion for learning follow from this.

Besdes an apparent ignorance of the subconscious reasons for why a healthy condition may make someone unhappy, I don't see much difference in our concepts of self-interest. If you mean base, shallow happiness as the end of self - interest, I think you are really confused. Self-interest means, as I described above, and interest in the self - so if you are interested in yourself, you'd like to know why you may find solitude 24-7 pleasurable, and whether or not that is actually helping you in becoming who you potentially are, freeing you. Interest in the self is not about pleasure solely; it is about finding oneself; finding who you could be unfettered and free of your mental chains.

RevMARKSman

29th September 2007, 13:58

By saying "I want you to accept my statement" you are describing a should statement. A would statement would read "you will agree with me if I give you this statement." A should statement refers to ideal desires and value systems, whereas a would statement refers to objective cause and effect. I.E. the distinction between ideal and [/i] cause and effect mentioned earlier.

So if "should" only means "I want you to" - why do you use it at all?

Self-interest means, as I described above, and interest in the self

–noun
1. regard for one's own interest or advantage, esp. with disregard for others.
2. personal interest or advantage.

"Interest" meaning the pursuit of pleasure, happiness, what have you - i.e. hedonism.

so if you are interested in yourself, you'd like to know why you may find solitude 24-7 pleasurable

And why? Because you won't be happy unless you know. If I want to find out something, it's because my not knowing will irritate me forever. Pursuit of happiness.

whether or not that is actually helping you in becoming who you potentially are

There are millions of "potential-me" concepts. I don't want to "become" any of them. I'd like to stay me, thank you, and have some sort of a career in microbiology.

Interest in the self is not about pleasure solely; it is about finding oneself; finding who you could be unfettered and free of your mental chains.

Yeah, I've spent a few years finding out who I am, and I know my own personality and my own drives more than you do. So you can stuff the babble.

And these "mental chains" would be...? Why are they "chains" as opposed to "assets" - Why would I be happier if I got rid of them?

Dean

30th September 2007, 03:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 12:58 pm

By saying "I want you to accept my statement" you are describing a should statement. A would statement would read "you will agree with me if I give you this statement." A should statement refers to ideal desires and value systems, whereas a would statement refers to objective cause and effect. I.E. the distinction between ideal and [/i] cause and effect mentioned earlier.

So if "should" only means "I want you to" - why do you use it at all?
Because it's shorter, and I'm used to it - as I said before, it's a linguistic convention. But it does mean more than "I want" - it refers to adherance to specific rules. It even describes things in a situation where "would" would also work, just that there may be some uncertainty. That is because it recognizes a ruleset which judges the correctness of a certain situation (If I push the slinky down the stairs it should stretch and recoil). You may not like or agree with that ruleset, but the point is that it is a comparitive judgement between fact and expectation, desire, or even just a ruleset which is deemed false.

It is also a potentially morally neutral statement. 'Should' is ultimately a description of situations where things may be uncertain but a claim is being made to this or that end as an ideal one; this ideal doesn't need to be positive, just adhere to a ruleset designated for the situation. So if I say "if I drop an apple, it should hit the surface below the apple" I am making a statement which is hardly uncertain in general terms, but is not just saying it will happen - it refers, implicitly, to the laws of gravity and all the other facts and rules which make up that concept.

Contrary to the definition you give, 'should' can be used negatively, too. If I say, "my wife who is visiting Iran should wear a Burka to avoid legal problems," I am not saying that I agree morally with the law; I am simply saying that I'd like to see my wife free and happy. "She should not have to wear a Burka" or "Iran should not have such unjust laws" are both instances of "should" as a moral qualifier which I agree with, but the first statement - "...should wear a Burka..." is morally negative and positive. I have a moral interest in her well-being which is superceding my moral interest in her freedom not to wear a cover while in Iran. I want it, and yet I don't want it, but I still use 'should.'

Self-interest means, as I described above, and interest in the self

–noun
1. regard for one's own interest or advantage, esp. with disregard for others.
2. personal interest or advantage.

"Interest" meaning the pursuit of pleasure, happiness, what have you - i.e. hedonism.
Sure, you can use it that way. I was referring to how I think of the term; it's a philosophical / psychological one.

As for "interest," it doesn't necessarily refer to pleasure. It is simply an active direction of attention towards a topic. "I am interested in the middle east" can be an expression of great sorrow at the human rights abuses there. I can see where pleasure comes into the equation, and perhaps it is always a part of interest, but it does not constitute the entirety of the term. For instance, pleasure does not of itself indicate the direction of attention. Pleasure can be passive, but interest is always an active respect for a given subject.

I understand how you can think of self-interest as a selfish, hedonistic concept, but hedonism for one is, more or less, a purely pleasure - interested orientation. But I don't think you can encapsulate all of the meaning of 'interest' with 'pleasure.'

so if you are interested in yourself, you'd like to know why you may find solitude 24-7 pleasurable

And why? Because you won't be happy unless you know. If I want to find out something, it's because my not knowing will irritate me forever. Pursuit of happiness.
I can see that as a similar concept, overlapping, maybe even referring to the same phenonomenon but with different terminology. Happiness, however, is not synonymous with pleasure, even though it has to do with it.

whether or not that is actually helping you in becoming who you potentially are

There are millions of "potential-me" concepts. I don't want to "become" any of them. I'd like to stay me, thank you, and have some sort of a career in microbiology.
Who you potentially are is not some kind of mold that society is asking you to fit into; it is contrarily, the satiation of your own internal drives in a productive, self-realizing way. It is recognition of the self and attempt to achieve that self; again, I can see where you might think that it means something else. But what I'm referring to is not just a basic interpretation of the terms, it is a psychological concept that is common to most marxist and psychoanalytic literature.

Interest in the self is not about pleasure solely; it is about finding oneself; finding who you could be unfettered and free of your mental chains.

Yeah, I've spent a few years finding out who I am, and I know my own personality and my own drives more than you do. So you can stuff the babble.
It's funny that you are continuing to be antagonistic when I've made a point to try not to.

This was not some kind of moral argument against what you are doing, and I was not saying anything about your internal mechanisms specifically. I'm simply describing, in broad terms, what I think are basic truths to psychology, or at least concepts useful in understanding the mind. I never said you have to do anything; Ironically, you said you've "spent a few years finding yourself" and that you "know yourself." Well, I'm saying that finding yourself is important. But I don't think you can ever stop; it is an ongoing struggle to understand why this or that is a fact of your mind every day. I am sure you can undergo drastic changes over short periods, and that you can even try to limit your self - awareness to the point of going backwards, but I don't think any of that really involves a complete disregard for attempting to know yourself, but rather recognition of that mental faculty and an attempt to ignore it. So I don't think the evolution of "self awareness" ever ends, except perhaps when we die.

And these "mental chains" would be...? Why are they "chains" as opposed to "assets" - Why would I be happier if I got rid of them?
Is it not a mental chain to think that there is something blocking your intended path when that something isn't really there? Do you really think that human beings are so lacking in complexity that they do not exhibit mental inhibitions? Maybe you will feel mroe pleasure if you ignore the faults of the world, but I think you will be ultimately happier knowing that you try not to lie to yourself. That is what makes it a more "happiness - inducing" act to shrug off these chains.

Of course, these chains manifest as simple fears, mental disorders, misconception, etc.; lies are just some of the easiest of these ideas to illustrate as inhibitory.

RevMARKSman

30th September 2007, 13:16

just adhere to a ruleset designated for the situation.

So, when you use it in the "moral" context, you're referring to a ruleset you pulled out of your ass to disguise that fact that you're just saying you want the person to do something.

In the context of expectations, e.g. Slinky, you're just saying "The Slinky will..." or "If my inferences from my observations of the world are correct, the Slinky will..."

I am not saying that I agree morally with the law; I am simply saying that I'd like to see my wife free and happy.

You're saying that ultimately you want your wife to wear the burka in this situation. It's not that difficult.

As for "interest," it doesn't necessarily refer to pleasure. It is simply an active direction of attention towards a topic.

Yeah, it can also mean extra money people pay back on a loan, but that's not the meaning we're using.

Interest, in this case, means "what you want." The same for "advantage" - the pursuit of more material goods or happiness, sometimes to the exclusion of others.

But I don't think you can encapsulate all of the meaning of 'interest' with 'pleasure.'

Yeah, because it has several meanings. I can't exactly say I want "5% pleasure" on a loan and expect people to understand me.

I think you will be ultimately happier knowing that you try not to lie to yourself. That is what makes it a more "happiness - inducing" act to shrug off these chains.

All right. Chains = ignorance, fears that one would be happier if one overcame, etc. Not so difficult.

And, yeah, sacrificing short-term happiness for greater long-term happiness is in one's self-interest. And learning produces short-term happiness for me too, so I win out.

Dean

30th September 2007, 23:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 12:16 pm

just adhere to a ruleset designated for the situation.

So, when you use it in the "moral" context, you're referring to a ruleset you pulled out of your ass to disguise that fact that you're just saying you want the person to do something.

In the context of expectations, e.g. Slinky, you're just saying "The Slinky will..." or "If my inferences from my observations of the world are correct, the Slinky will..."
As for morals, they complexities of the mind; not random assumptions as you seem to imply. I never said they were provable, just that they were opinions - and real, active ones which we need to recognize if we care to understand the human species.

The statement you make designates a ruleset ("inferences from [your] observations of the world") which brings the question of adherance or inadherance to the table. This makes it a should statement; of course, you can use will or would instead, but that doesn't change that the term is perfectly acceptable and understandable.

I am not saying that I agree morally with the law; I am simply saying that I'd like to see my wife free and happy.

You're saying that ultimately you want your wife to wear the burka in this situation. It's not that difficult.
I'm explaining how "should" does not always represent the greatest ideal, or even an ideal at all (fyi, in this sense ideal means something I want ultimately, I used the term somewhat differently in the last post).

As for "interest," it doesn't necessarily refer to pleasure. It is simply an active direction of attention towards a topic.

Yeah, it can also mean extra money people pay back on a loan, but that's not the meaning we're using.

Interest, in this case, means "what you want." The same for "advantage" - the pursuit of more material goods or happiness, sometimes to the exclusion of others.
Why can I accept that your understanding of the term is plausible but you can't accept that alternate understanding are appropriate?

'Self-interest,' as I have used it, refers to the concept I described. You may disagree with that understanding, or use the term primarily in a different way. That's fine, but when you are discussing a statement I have made, you have to recognize that term for how I understand it. This seems to be your primary failing here.

But I don't think you can encapsulate all of the meaning of 'interest' with 'pleasure.'

Yeah, because it has several meanings. I can't exactly say I want "5% pleasure" on a loan and expect people to understand me.
Of course, I mean psychologically - that is, as it refers to certain basic psychological activity. You know that the term interest, used by itself and in a psychological context, refers most broadly to a direction of attention towards a given object, be it an idea or otherwise. 'Interest' as desire is a distinct form of the term which is enveloped by the more broad meaning; I was interested in the results of tests on my mom's biopsies, but it gave me great fear, displeasure, and unhappiness to interest myself in them. Yes, there is an element of desire in interest, most basically that you desire to see, understand and associate with whatever it is you are interested in, but that does not encapsulate the entire meaning in my opinion. If you don't agree, that's fine, and I can relate to your argument. But when in the context of judging my statements, I think it is only rational to infer that my meaning should be incorporated into the reasoning.

Yes, I know I referred to your usage as well and criticised it. The difference is that it was my usage which was originally contested, and further that I recognized and pointed out that your understanding of the term was reasonable and acceptable as well.

I think you will be ultimately happier knowing that you try not to lie to yourself. That is what makes it a more "happiness - inducing" act to shrug off these chains.

All right. Chains = ignorance, fears that one would be happier if one overcame, etc. Not so difficult.

And, yeah, sacrificing short-term happiness for greater long-term happiness is in one's self-interest. And learning produces short-term happiness for me too, so I win out.
I'm glad - and surprised - that you are backing down on a criticism. I get the feeling that you are more misunderstanding me, than actually disagreeing with my points.

Still, I'm really surprised that your arguments are so specifically centered around the "meaninglessness" of terms. I think certain terms have no realistic, certain meaning in regards to their distinctions ('religion' comes to mind) but I still recognize that they are utilized in certain fashions, different depending on whom you talk to. Feuerbach, for instance, would describe religion as the essential nature of man, that is, his basic drive toward relating to / understanding the world. Most people I know would define it by designating a certain set of philosophies to the term, but singling out others, and this is based solely on society's impression that certain ideas should garner special favor and are outside the realm of objective criticism - they call these things religions. That term, completely lost from its initial meaning (a persons rituals) is vague and unrealistic, but it also has certain linguistic and psychological meaning. So I don't ***** every time others use the term religion; indeed, I use it myself. It has meaning, which I disagree with, but I won't be so condescending to tell someone that I can't answer a reasonable statement just because I think one of the terms is inaccurate.

RevMARKSman

1st October 2007, 01:59

I'm explaining how "should" does not always represent the greatest ideal, or even an ideal at all

yeah, it can be used to explain either an ideal (what you want) or what you expect to happen.

As for morals, they complexities of the mind; not random assumptions as you seem to imply. I never said they were provable, just that they were opinions - and real, active ones which we need to recognize if we care to understand the human species.

I'm not saying people don't think they have "morals." I'm saying that these rules people make up are based on what they want and are nothing else. Sure, we need to understand what people want to understand society. But to pretend that "morality" has any meaning whatsoever other than what individual people want to happen because it satisfies them is incorrect.

'Self-interest,' as I have used it, refers to the concept I described. You may disagree with that understanding, or use the term primarily in a different way. That's fine, but when you are discussing a statement I have made, you have to recognize that term for how I understand it. This seems to be your primary failing here.

I say all "morality" boils down to what you perceive is in your self-interest.

You say all "morality" boils down to one's self-interest.

Except we mean different things by "self-interest."

So ultimately I don't agree with you.

I was interested in the results of tests on my mom's biopsies, but it gave me great fear, displeasure, and unhappiness to interest myself in them. Yes, there is an element of desire in interest, most basically that you desire to see, understand and associate with whatever it is you are interested in, but that does not encapsulate the entire meaning in my opinion.

In your opinion?

What more is there to the term?

To be "interested in" a thing means to want to learn about it. Somehow, in the end, because you learned about it, that urge to learn is satisfied. Desire.
For something to be in one's "interest" means that it benefits you, gives you happiness. Therefore you want it. Desire again.

That's what I'm saying. Morality boils down to one's own desire for happiness.
You're saying that interest doesn't always involve happiness, and so morality is more than that.

So I don't ***** every time others use the term religion; indeed, I use it myself. It has meaning, which I disagree with, but I won't be so condescending to tell someone that I can't answer a reasonable statement just because I think one of the terms is inaccurate.

Except I'm arguing over terms because you're saying that "right" "wrong" "should" etc can be defined in ways beyond what I'm saying. If I can boil the objective definitions of those words down into the simpler concept of "what I want," then the whole basis for morality is gone. Morality is based on, supposedly, what one thinks one "should" do. But if "should" just means "would, if I had my way" then "morality" is ultimately one's own selfish desire, and it's much easier just to throw away the meaningless complexity and do what you want. Nothing more. Which is my position in this argument.