Checky's last comment also brings this thought to mind: one of the reasons it matters where we base our morality... if it's based on a fixed moral authority, we don't have the freedom to adjust to new conditions. And often living together in a changing world requires us to reinterpret our morals, to dig deeper and find out what is really good for us. A classic example is the Pope telling Africans they shouldn't use condoms even though their livelihood basically depends upon it due to AIDS. Since there is no freedom within Catholicism to reinterpret what is actually the best thing for these people in this situation, the Pope has to go by the "rule", which in this case leads to a very harmful position by the church.

If something exists as "the way things actually are", then that has an existance outside of us doesn't it?

When you die, will these things change? Therefore they are outside of us.

Ok, if that's what you mean by outside of us I can agree with this. It's just that we are talking about a fact about ourselves - what is right for us, so I guess I took your phrase in a different way.

excelent question.

my first thought was well i can see the world from a nihilistic view and still think that some actions are not desirable if we want to live together in a society.

but then i read it again and the word judge jumped out of the screen at me.

can i judge them because they have acted in such a way that threatens my peaceful coexistence with those around me?

can i say that on a philosophical level there are no moral absolutes but on a pragmatic level i'm willing to violate this principle?

i think i can.

but like you said it is sort of like "I am all for a full dictatorship, as long as I'm the dictator." i guess i either need to find jesus or be a bit of a hypocrite

i could read that paragraph a couple of ways--first, that our transcendence of rape-as-procreation is a good thing, and possibly even the foundation of what we call morality in the first place; and second, that he's trying to illustrate a weird version of the nietzschean point that morality is a self-imposed societal force that is meant to alter our "natural" or "proper" instincts.

i'm honestly not clear on which he means there.


that said, i generally find the authors of the contemporary atheist movement to be pretty intellectually wanting, at best, and some combination of dishonest and vindictive at worst, as i'm sure you know, so i don't know that i'd choose sam harris as a worthy opponent in this kind of debate. (though, granted, i know less about harris than i do of hitchens or dawkins, who i'm mostly referring to here)

This is absolutely true.

But I would argue that the Pope is wrong about his interpretation of the Bible, so his decision is only an example of man imposing his ideals on others, not one of man following God's rules.

Also the Pope is only 'wrong' because of the amount of promiscuity in Africa, their 'sinful' actions are the root of the problem, not whether they should use condoms. The whole morality is required, choosing which morals you want to adhere to isn't a viable alternative.



If there were issues of morality that changed, then there would be a good argument that God wasn't correct about what He decreed. He wouldn't be a very god-like God if His rules were subject to a changing societies wants...

I'm not sure what that paragraph is getting at out of context either, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean the second thing.

Yea, it's a common debating technique to force you to defend someone on your side that is an idiot. I get it with Catholic priests.

I read an interesting report that basically said a male atheist is 30% more likely to be unmarried. I guess being told that religion is bad all day isn't appealing to many women.

Like the first isn't damning enough...

i agree with that to some extent, but i think that it still begs BG's original question--that if we abandon all a priori ground for morality, morality itself ceases to have meaning and our moral appeals to one another really can't hold any weight due to their relativistic nature.

fwiw, my personal opinion on this is that it is in fact the "easy" moral issues that lead to the development of more general moral frameworks that are then used to negotiate more difficult moral terrain. for instance, the hot button abortion issue is cast on the left as an issue of free will and on the right as an issue of life/murder. i'd suggest that this is because we DO have the sort of absolute-truthy moral feelings with regard to free will and murder, but we're still in the middle of the historical process of expanding that into some sort of wider moral framework with regard to more complex issues.

I think 'goodness' has a certain value to it that we can all appreciate.

I always felt I was a good person before Christ...I like to think I'm a better one after.

Yeah, except he's not just a man imposing his ideals, he's the authority.



Not to societies wants, but to societies needs.

There are basically two people recently that have influenced my thinking on these issues... one is Sam, who I don't entirely agree with (yet) but has successfully shot down some of my arguments against his version of utilitarianism to draw me closer.... and the other is Jon Haidt, who is more of a describer of morality than anything else.

Haidt's research shows a couple of interesting things, one is that he has broken down morality into several categories of things that all cultures consider in their versions of morality:

harm/care
fairness/justice
purity/sanctity
ingroup loyalty
authority/respect

Various cultures give more or less importance to each of these... for example to go back to the Indian thing, purity/sanctity is pretty big over there. For example, feet are considered "dirty" and you don't put your feet above something you respect or show your feet to someone you respect. This makes a lot of sense if you've ever been to India, the ground is pretty pretty dirty.

tell that to your daughter. she wants me, just so we're clear.

I agree with BG on that, but propose that we can have an objective grounds for morality that doesn't require appeal to religious authority.



this brings me to the other thing Haidt has shown really well: most people base their moral judgements on "gut feelings". He has these very revealing taped interviews with people where they are grilled on certain issues and forced to keep answering questions in defense of their positions. For example, why is it wrong for a brother and sister to marry? Eventually it comes down to a feeling of disgust that people just trust.

30 years ago, homosexuality was considerd a mental disorder. We're in the middle of that process as well.

I guess you know where I think this gut feeling comes from.

It was never your beliefs....it was your height

sure, i'll buy that. i just don't think that those sorts of extra-religious grounds can really lay claim to any sort of superior standing over their religious counterparts.



i'm not really sure that i like the term "gut feelings," but i think that morality does function this way in most people that i've encountered and had the opportunity to push philosophically. so sure, this haidt fellow sounds ok by me.

i mean, if you ask anyone "why?" forever about anything, they eventually have to say "just because," right? i mean, unless you're a nietzschean.

Natural selection against organisms that had hot brother on sister sex but gave birth to monsters?

It's actually a really accurate term! Much of the brain's emotional landscape comes from processing of (and remembering) sensations originating in the gut.

Protestant...He's just an authority.




They got some thing about their left hand also...

Haidt sounds interesting...Harris was just confrontational without being very intellectualy honest...imo

fyp

bah, it sounds so not rigorous.



ok, bedtime for me. was fun, kids. thanks.

I know, I just meant he's the authority for those people. My implication is that whenever you go by an authority it can be wrong but you have to accept it.



Sam is so direct and unrelenting that its distasteful to some people, I do get that. But I don't think he's intellectually dishonest.

gn.

Morality is just the conformance of individuals to what that society deems as good conduct. It comes from culture, not from God. Many cultures are influenced by religion and utilize their dogma to dictate morality but that does not mean morality comes from God.

This is why there is a different morality in each culture. You will see similarities because this is how you will create a civilized society, such as not killing, raping, plundering, etc. However, even in these moral categories, the expression of morality differs from culture to culture. Some cultures accept a man raping his wife because it is her marital obligation to have sex with him while other cultures find it to be a criminal act.

God does not dictate what is right and wrong. Society dictates it.

you did. hitchens believes in social selection. "moral" behavior leads to social harmony. harmonious social groups are fitter than chaotic groups.



mischaracterization of what is being said.

try: if mankind (either voluntarily or via social selection) decides that something is beneficial for human happiness and/or social survival/harmony, we label that thing as moral. moral and "right" are just descriptive terms that mean "beneficial in some way ".



the subjectivity of morality alone refutes that.

i meant anybody in this thread. obviously you are the only one arguing that a moral truth is a truth regardless of circumstances.

BG, maybe I missed this from earlier in the thread, but where are you saying that morality comes from? Is it that you're saying it's from reading the bible and being told what to do, or that god inserted a morality center into our bodies/souls when we were created?

I know what you're arguing against, but not exactly what you're arguing for, I guess.

Also, how's your dog doing?

we do the right thing because the right thing is what either we think or what our instinct tells us works. fear has nothing to do with it.

I am not arguing that morality comes from God, but doesn't fear have something to do with us being moral? If we are not moral, than we are ostracized by other members of society. Isn't it human nature to want to fit in?

I appreciate the humility aspect of cultural relativism. It's good to recognize that our cultural perspective isn't uniquely qualified to judge morality.

Taken as a whole, however, I find the concept highly repugnant and defeatist. Part of the culture of the Nazis was to blame the Jews. Who are we to judge? We're individuals who have to follow our own moral compass. The man in your example can choose not to force sex on his wife. I'm sure it happens.

Sorry to Godwin the thread.

i meant fear isn't the reason morality exists. if humans were incapable of fear morality would still have evolved and (at least most of us) would
still behave the same.

Wait.

If humans were incapable of fear most humans would still behave the same?

That's outlandish, certainly you mean something else.

not the best wording i guess. i mean positive motivation alone would still lead humans to
the same social moral behavior.

Funny, I didn't really think about my side of this much.

I do believe we have an inner voice that tells us when something is right, like we have one that tells us there is a God, and with practise we can be more in tune, or less in tune with it.

But ultimately I believe God has a way for us to live, that is the correct and moral way. This is the blueprint to compare our actions to. The Bible lays this blueprint out.

It's validity can be argued, just as God's existance or whether Christ is worthy of worship. But it's results I think are pretty convincing.


And the wife gave an asprin to the dog, and he hasn't acted like he hurts much since. Although I am hurting in the hands after golf and I keep hearing of you saying..'43...yea, that's when arthritist starts'
So we are both scheduled to see a doc.

Positive motivation like?

Getting wealth

Getting women

Gaining power

Grabbing land

Getting revenge

These will all lead to the same social moral behavior as the high and nobel ones we attribute to be high and noble?


I think you have oversimplied this to the point that you will accept anything

It would be an interesting thought experiment to conceive of humanity without fear.

I suspect the changes socially and behaviorally would be immense.

Fear -- on so many levels as to make the idea of considering how deep -- is responsible for so much human behavior, so many beliefs and actions that the effect of it's absence would be impossible to overestimate.

I find it interesting that everything you've mentioned, every single thing has been conducted on a global level by religion throughout recorded history.

That is not to say religion is the cause of these actions, merely a great way for groups of people to perform them with Holy and Sanctified permission from on high.

what blueprint would that be? the one that includes cultural elitism slavery and genocide?

I would never stop at a stop sign making a right hand turn if I wasn't fearful of a ticket. Human behavior is based on both reward and consequence. You can't take fear out of behavior and morality is judgment on that behavior.

I threw the rape example out there because it is more ambiguous.

Keep in mind, religion does dictate a large part of reality in most cultures. I am just saying that God does not dictate morality. Religion is man's interpretation of spiritual relationship with God. Since it is an interpretation, that is why there are so many religions.

And we do judge all of the time. Our society has created rules and mores that we live by. When someone breaks the rule, we judge and depending on the infraction, we punish. However, this has nothing to do with God intervening. It is cultural development to create a civilized society. In fact, I think to state that God is responsible for morality is being defeatist because then we take no ownership for the laws we make or how they are governed.

i'm assuming humanity is smart/evolved enough to where social fitness is valued above individual goals.

yeah, thats a safe assumption.

So men with an outside moral standard they are called to follow fail to achive this.

But men without any outside source of morality, with no guidance at all, have risen above it to evolve a morality that exist today?

Yea, I don't think that helps your side of the argument that morality is hard to follow...

Yea..that's the one.


I bet if you just use the old testament you can really show my side in a bad light.

I will then bring up atheism's wonderful little track record.

You want to compare?

But if there is a benchmark that God has set for our actions, then it is our noble goal to seek and find this benchmark, and live accordingly. Hardly a defeatist attitude.

And if there is no benchmark for morality, then we are on a never ending road that leads to nothing but our personal opinion of the day's ethics. Hardly a goal that lifts up the soul.

Good luck with that one.

Every example you could bring up will be tied to or modeled after religion.

The Catholic Churches involvement or the figurehead of the 'non-religious state' being literally deified, replacing one god for another.

In September 2003, National Geographic reported that “there are more slaves today than were seized from
Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.”

700,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year according to the Trafficking in Persons Report of 2006.