Why Do We Matter?

[GuyGone]

Most of us would agree that human life matters.  Most of us agree that child molestation and spousal abuse and human trafficking are inherently immoral.  Why will volunteers here in Colorado come out to hunt for a single lost hiker/hunter/skier?  Right now rescuers are taking risks to find and rescue the victims on the two major earthquakes that happened this week.

 

I know that there are some atheists who believe (or claim to believe) that humans are just another species of animal.  But I'm sure that all of them recognize unfairness in mistreatment by their employer or by the police.  Most of them would call the police or use a gun if a burglar or rapist was breaking into their house, even if the intruder believes they have a right to whatever it is they want.

 

I know there are some famous atheist/psychopaths (Stalin, Che, Mao, etc.) who really did treat people as objects and killed them by the thousands, millions, and tens of millions.  I know that not everyone agrees on all the moral rules, not all of us agree on what is right and what is wrong. But nearly all of us agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong.  Nearly all of us would agree that randomly killing pedestrians on the street is immoral, even if it gives you a thrill.  I think we'd all agree that murdering your children because the guy you want to  be with doesn't want kids is intrinsically wrong.

 

Why is it that humans seem to be the only species with a moral sense?  We've seen the pictures of adult elephants making a defensive wall between a baby elephant and a predator.  We've seen Internet videos of adult elephants pushing a baby elephant out of the mud.  But I'm not aware of any evidence of a general moral sense in animals.  Dogs will defend their pack, but the pack doesn't risk their lives to move at the speed of a crippled animal.  The crippled one falls behind.

 

The Christian answer, of course, is that we are made in the image of God and given intrinsic worth by God.

 

If there is no God, do we have "inalienable rights"?  Or is morality defined by the strongest warlord?  Can Americans claim that constitutional rights are valid, or are rights just temporary privileges to be granted and  revoked on a whim by whoever has power?  Should we abandon all morality and just let everyone (including child molesters and slavers) do whatever pleases them?  Do we abandon the idea of right and wrong and morality?  Why do we all think that is a silly question since some things are so obviously wrong?

 

Of course, part of the answer is our society.  In the jungle, animals with compassion and mercy are called "breakfast".  And there have always been tribal affiliations, where anyone who isn't part of your tribe is by default "the enemy".  I think we're seeing more and more of this in modern politics.  But modern society gives us less of a daily life-and-death viewpoint.

 

Where does morality come from?  We obviously are going to all agree on some laws that govern our activities.  So some of it is societal.  But what basis do we use to reach that agreement?  If we're purely utilitarian, we would execute anyone who is crippled, mentally slow, blind, etc.  Because we would only want those who can contribute and produce.  Some of us have seen the old video of George Bernard Shaw pontificating that everyone should be required to appear before a tribunal every couple of years to justify their existence, and if they can't do so, they are executed.  Most of us are disgusted by the amorality, arrogance, and pure evil of that idea.  But why?  If there is no God, where does our morality come from?  Why were Shaw, Stalin, Hitler, and people like them so completely wrong? We agree that human life has value and that people matter.  I'm not arguing against that.  But why do most sane, rational people believe that to be true?

 

Thoughts? Observations? Rants?

[Ellinas]

From where I'm standing, morality is artificial.

 

It's, at best, the set of rules that society grows by a sort of pseudo-organic process thereby allowing the majority to enforce conformity.  Survival is part of the equation.  Power is also an element.

 

There is no absolute rule that says killing children is wrong.  Just ask (were it possible) those in ancient (or even not so ancient) societies who would habitually expose unwanted children.  There is no absolute rule that says killing the elderly or infirm is wrong.  Indeed, in a small social group an accepted method of removing them or leaving them behind might be necessary to the wellbeing of the group as a whole.  In a society that has come to place value on the continuation of life, the moral imperative may well be to participate in rescue parties; in a society that values death, self sacrifice in conflict whilst taking as many others with you as possible may be the accepted course.

 

Which is why I reject morality as a meaningful concept.  It means whatever a given society, or part of society, deems it to mean at any given point.  I'd rather just accept that my actions have consequences and that I am responsible for those consequences.  As long as I am happy with the effect of what I do, whether others view me as moral or whether I conform to a social norm is utterly irrelevant.

[miamia]

I believe that human life matters only to oneself. We are surrounded by other humans who feel the same way, and in cooperation with them, we are able to build a system that raises quality of life for everyone, improves everyone's intelligence through communication, etc. We recognize the benefit of helping others, being social, being compassionate, on a subconscious level. We get comfort from other human beings *in most cases. I'll get back to that.

 

I do believe firmly that humans are just another species of animal. This is a fact. we are what we are. We are a very special animal, a very strange and wonderful fantastic animal, although maybe I am just particular to humans because of my sympathy to my own species. Or maybe it's the fact that we dominate the globe. We have such an intriguing and generalized set of skills. For a hairless apparently defenseless species that has such helpless squishy newborns that take such a long time to develop into mature valuable adults and are such a cumbersome tax on resources... we are very successful. we look so innocuous compared to other. anyway, I think one of the reasons we have gotten so far is certainly our tendency to coexist peacefully, at least with other members that speak the same language, ( you judge the intelligence of others very harshly based on how well they can communicate with you). Cooperation is all morality is. cooperation has a plethora of different forms it can take based on the environmental pressures a culture is subjected to. Researching sexuality in different cultures over history is one thing that has certainly helped me realize this. As truly shocking as it may be, the vast majority of what you consider to be morality is unnervingly subjective.

 

In some cultures, lying, tricking someone into being your friend, only to lure them in and have them killed and eaten, is championed as a display of intelligence. because for whatever reason, that skill is really, really indispensable in their particular environment.

 

See the wikipedia article on  history of human sexuality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_sexuality:

 

the section on french polynesia is interesting to me, It describes very young girls, seducing men, and having sex with them of their own volition. This is considered, in our society, to be pedophilia. But in that society, children were taught from a young age that having sex whenever you feel like it, with whoever you feel like having it, is a normal acceptable part of life. It didn't seem to stop their culture from thriving. There are many examples of morality concerning sex, punishment, child rearing, infanticide, slavery, etc.in other cultures that would appall you. Some of those "moral" sets are more beneficial than others. the one we are currently working with is probably part of what has made us so successful.  But that doesn't support the idea of absolute right and wrong.

 

In the jungle, animals with compassion and mercy, as you call them, are not necessarily called breakfast. Socializing, building relationships, and showing "empathy" did not evolve for no reason, or else they would not exist. they serve a purpose. They are beneficial traits that in many cases, do protect you from being eaten, and can help everyone get more resources, and raise fitter offspring.

 

There is a huge leap between not believing in morality as most people describe it, and believing that everyone who doesn't meet some arbitrary standard of fitness be culled. It doesn't disgust me per se, but there is a lot to be known about individuals who feel that way. It is an extremely sociopathic vantage point.  "If someone does not benefit me( or society, and thus myself) by directly contributing to my resources, or improving my quality of life in a form that can be measured or quantified, then they are a parasite that must be removed and cut off."  To a person like that, socializing in itself likely doesn't bring any pleasure or reward. warmth and company is not enough. other individuals are not enough, they are measured by their immediate benefit to him, they have no worth otherwise. This can be for a variety of reasons. *back to associating comfort with other human beings. If from infancy, you are not given the opportunity to associate other humans with comfort and warmth and happiness, there is a cut off date where you can no longer learn to associate them with those things. Children that are not held, children that are left alone to cry in infancy, even if they are given enough nourishment and kept reasonably healthy very often develop this mindset. When they feel alone and cry out for attention, eventually they realize that no one is coming, and they accept this as a part of existence. After a while, a touch looses it's ability to comfort, the sound of someone else's voice coming down the hall does not make them jump with expectation.

OR, Sometimes children are reared with a very tribal mindset, and they are able to connect very strongly with others that look like, and communicate like them, but outsiders are absolutely alien to them and they perceive them as having no value whatsoever.

 

Neglect is not the only way this can happen. but that kind of mindset is just one of many. "sane rational people" as you call them, are just people who you can relate to. "human life has value, people matter" maybe they have value and they matter to you, because you are able to empathize. This is not so for everyone. empathy can make you successful, and lack of empathy can make you successful. It really depends on your environment.

[florduh]

I'm still unclear on where the "God" character depicted in the Bible would stand on the value of human life. After all, it was He Himself who brought genocidal plagues and drowned out all life on the planet, according to fable. The followers of that book have wantonly killed so many of God's creatures with crusades and witch burning in His name, it seems like morality and the concept of an intrinsic value to life is of strictly human invention, just like the gods are also our invention.

[rjn]

Religious beliefs may very well influence morals that are beneficial and "just", but I'd hardly look to Christian fundamentalism for that.

[sdelsolray]

Two posts to address your questions.  This is Part 1.

 

 

Most of us would agree that human life matters.  Most of us agree that child molestation and spousal abuse and human trafficking are inherently immoral.  Why will volunteers here in Colorado come out to hunt for a single lost hiker/hunter/skier?  

 

...

 

 

Nearly all agree that child molestation is wrong.  Many less agree that spousal abuse and slavery are wrong, more so in the past than at the present time.  Many humans will incur risk to search to a missing person, more so if that missing person is kin or lives in the local community.  The evidence strongly suggests this altruism is based on a combination of genetics and societal norms.

...

I know that there are some atheists who believe (or claim to believe) that humans are just another species of animal.  But I'm sure that all of them recognize unfairness in mistreatment by their employer or by the police.  Most of them would call the police or use a gun if a burglar or rapist was breaking into their house, even if the intruder believes they have a right to whatever it is they want.

...

 

Perhaps a better way to put it is many persons accept the evidence-based explanation and classification that homo sapiens sapiens is a species in the animal kingdom, and that they further accept the Biological Theory of Evolution as the best explanation of all currently available evidence.  Yes, most these same folks, to some degree or another, will recognize unfairness in the examples you reference, and would call the police or use self-help to confront criminal activity.  None of this is contradictory.  Indeed, it is expected.

 

...

I know there are some famous atheist/psychopaths (Stalin, Che, Mao, etc.) who really did treat people as objects and killed them by the thousands, millions, and tens of millions.  I know that not everyone agrees on all the moral rules, not all of us agree on what is right and what is wrong. But nearly all of us agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong.  Nearly all of us would agree that randomly killing pedestrians on the street is immoral, even if it gives you a thrill.  I think we'd all agree that murdering your children because the guy you want to  be with doesn't want kids is intrinsically wrong.

...

 

Why use the term "atheist/psychopaths" when the term "psychopaths" would suffice?  Are the any "theist/psychopaths"?  If so, why didn't you mention them?

 

Yes, virtually all humans agree there is right and wrong behavior.

...

Why is it that humans seem to be the only species with a moral sense?  We've seen the pictures of adult elephants making a defensive wall between a baby elephant and a predator.  We've seen Internet videos of adult elephants pushing a baby elephant out of the mud.  But I'm not aware of any evidence of a general moral sense in animals.  Dogs will defend their pack, but the pack doesn't risk their lives to move at the speed of a crippled animal.  The crippled one falls behind.

...

 

I challenge your premise that humans are the only species with a moral sense.  Other species' moral sense may contain fewer do's and dont's, or aren't as pervasive as humans' moral sense, but many other species have it.  Granted, it isn't the same as humans' moral sense, but neither are different humans societies' moral sense the same as other societies' moral sense.

...

The Christian answer, of course, is that we are made in the image of God and given intrinsic worth by God.

...

 

This is not an answer at all, but a bald claim promoted by theists.  It explains nothing, except that the proponent believes the claim.

[sdelsolray]

Part 2:

 

 

...

If there is no God, do we have "inalienable rights"?  Or is morality defined by the strongest warlord?

...

 

 

False dichotomy.  There are other choices.  FIrst, if there is no god which creates inalienable rights, the humans do so, if ever.  Human societies which choose to declare certain rights "inalienable" will maintain those rights unless they discard them.  Humans have been living in societies, first in small clans and tribes and more recently in entire nation-states, for about 200,000 years, and the evidence reveals that our ancestor species lived in societies as well dating back much much longer (millions of years).  Certain individual and group behaviors within the group tend to help the group.  Conversely, certain individual and group behaviors within the group tend to hurt the group.  The former are reinforced in the gene pool via selection pressure and by group memes and consensus.  The later, not so much.  Some behaviors, such as murder (within the group) and theft (within the group) were deemed improper (i.e., immoral) early in human societal development.  Indeed, some behaviors were deemed wrong well before the human species even arose (e.g., incest).

 

Other "morals" have appeared in more recent times in many societies, such as prohibition of slavery, rights of assembly, free speech and free press, and the right of privacy, among many others.

 

This leads to the reasonable explanation that human moral/ethical behavior, human rights and sanctions for improper behavior are a human invention, localized by time and gene/societal pools as to details.

...

Can Americans claim that constitutional rights are valid, or are rights just temporary privileges to be granted and  revoked on a whim by whoever has power?  Should we abandon all morality and just let everyone (including child molesters and slavers) do whatever pleases them?  Do we abandon the idea of right and wrong and morality?  Why do we all think that is a silly question since some things are so obviously wrong?

...

 

 

The US Constitution simply grants the government certain powers over US civilization and sets forth certain restrictions on that government.  It can be changed by a majority of Congress and a majority of States.  Indeed, it could be entirely abolished by the same process.

 

No, we shouldn't abandon morality and just let everyone do as they wish.  Such a society will not survive.

...

Of course, part of the answer is our society.  In the jungle, animals with compassion and mercy are called "breakfast".  And there have always been tribal affiliations, where anyone who isn't part of your tribe is by default "the enemy".  I think we're seeing more and more of this in modern politics.  But modern society gives us less of a daily life-and-death viewpoint.

...

 

 

Well, all carbon based life on this planet must find food to metabolize in order to live.  As Carl Sagan once wrote (I can't remember the source so I'm paraphrasing), 'the evolution of the cell wall was the beginning of self and xenophobia'.  There has always been tribalism in societies, and in politics in particular.  Perhaps you are noticing it more now because the of the media's fixation on it.

 

...

Where does morality come from?  We obviously are going to all agree on some laws that govern our activities.  So some of it is societal.  But what basis do we use to reach that agreement?  If we're purely utilitarian, we would execute anyone who is crippled, mentally slow, blind, etc.  Because we would only want those who can contribute and produce.  Some of us have seen the old video of George Bernard Shaw pontificating that everyone should be required to appear before a tribunal every couple of years to justify their existence, and if they can't do so, they are executed.  Most of us are disgusted by the amorality, arrogance, and pure evil of that idea.  But why?  If there is no God, where does our morality come from?  Why were Shaw, Stalin, Hitler, and people like them so completely wrong? We agree that human life has value and that people matter.  I'm not arguing against that.  But why do most sane, rational people believe that to be true?

 

Thoughts? Observations? Rants?

 

Morality is based on societal consensus, with influences from known history and genetics.  Much of the "agreement" towards the consensus was already decided before you and I were born, and there is no pressure to change it.  There may be a time when that could change.  For example, if a large asteroid hit the Earth leaving only small pockets of survivors worldwide, the consensus could easily change for some or many of our current morals and ethics.

 

Again, the evidence strongly suggests that human morals and ethics are human constructs.  

 

The speculation that they come from some invisible sky fairy is just that - pure speculation.

[hockeyfan70]

I know there are some famous atheist/psychopaths (Stalin, Che, Mao, etc.) who really did treat people as objects and killed them by the thousands, millions, and tens of millions.  I know that not everyone agrees on all the moral rules, not all of us agree on what is right and what is wrong. But nearly all of us agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong.  Nearly all of us would agree that randomly killing pedestrians on the street is immoral, even if it gives you a thrill.  I think we'd all agree that murdering your children because the guy you want to  be with doesn't want kids is intrinsically wrong.

 

I think that atheism was only a small part of the reason why the people mentioned above murdered. There are political, ideological and socio-economic reasons as well. Hitler killed millions of people, yet he considered himself a Christian.

 

For example, I have been involved in the war against human trafficking for several years now. At first, I wanted to lump all the traffickers into the "they are just evil people" category. However, although you will definitely find sociopaths and those who want to do harm to others because they are sick and twisted, the primary motivation is money. If there's a demand for trafficking, there will always be a supply. If there's money to be made, then people will want to make money doing so.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

I've been pondering this recently after reading about a mentally retarded guy that raped and killed a young ballet dancer in Texas (she was from my region). She was an amazing young lady, very talented, aiming to be a doctor like her dad eventually. This guy saw her, and took her, then killed her. They arrested him. Since he's in Texas, he likely will face the death penalty. But first... we have to go out of our way to make sure his rights aren't violated. There is no question that he did it, but all the hoops have to be jumped through in proper order. Those hoops are necessary for ensuring proper justice for all. But once decided, kill him. Many will object based on his mental problems. Many want to preach Jesus to them in hopes of them becoming penitent (where we get "penitentiaries"). I see his poor mental state as another reason TO kill him, since he has no prospect of change, and has demonstrated his violent will. I'm all for giving people a chance, but when they prove themselves predators of other humans, dispose of them as trash.

 

I see homeless tweakers every day downtown where I work. They amount to nothing in society, leave needles with tainted blood in every nook and crevice of a building or drain, endangering those who have to clean the buildings. There is almost 100% certainty that they will never change, and will eventually die on the street. Many of them are mentally ill, making odd gestures continually as though sorting invisible mail, carrying on arguments with the air, occasionally vandalizing, very often stealing what isn't nailed down, and generally being obnoxious pests strewing garbage. I see no reason at all to support their life, and every reason to round them up and either exterminate them as we would rodents. I recalled the movie Soylent Green, and the trucks that would gather them like garbage and recycle them. If I became a tweaker and homeless, I'd be just as useless. Sure, some who are homeless are smart, educated, veterans, and are there through no fault of their own, losing a home and livelyhood and are now doing all they can to survive. These should be helped, and I'm all for finding ways to prevent homelessness from happening.

 

I've heard it said that one of the main reasons for the Crusades was to get the knights the hell out of England where they would rape and pillage as they pleased. Telling them about hell to make them afraid of hurting peasants, and putting them onto a holy task in a far away country was the monks idea. In this situation, those in power were the ones feeding off the weaker in society. I imagine that this has been the way of mankind for a very long time. We see it played out in Africa and the Middle East daily today. Humanity developed ethics over centuries of thinking about life. Some philosophers were rich and educated, others poor and living under the heel of racism or class differences. Religions often codify a set of concepts. But as we know in the Bible, the rule set is often very lacking when compared with our current morality.

 

Animals other than humans can be kind and compassionate, even to other kinds of life. But typically, they are food. Most predators don't even bother killing their prey first, they just start eating. Killing the prey only helps keep it from escaping, not because there is any sense of "I don't want it to suffer". Someone mentioned pedophilia, and I've seen a bull trying his darndest to mate with a very young calf. I've seen a horse have butt sex with a male donkey. I've seen a monkey use a frog as a slippery sex toy. I think the same happens with humans. Some see the kids as beautiful and available and have no qualms either raping or less severely "educating them", others know the harm it causes them physically and mentally and oppose this. Spartans would leave weak or deformed babies out in nature to die. They had to in order for their tribe to survive a harsh world. There is a mishmash of personal and tribal culture that guides us and other animals. Very often those cultures will be in conflict with other cultures, even within a person.

 

"Life" doesn't care. Life is only concerned with surviving long enough to make more life. If something dies out, so be it. Something else will take its place in this terrarium. I don't believe that all human life is precious. Some is cancerous, like most of the prison population, the known gang members, and everyone that demonstrates a predatory nature to the rest of us. I don't know if such an attitude leads to a totalitarian government, or simply a more alert and responsive society. There is no morality but what we make. It both serves us and rules us, if enforced by other humans.

 

Over the centuries, we've developed concepts that lead to a happier life for most in a society. The rule of law instead of the divine right of kings. "Do to others as you would have them do to you" (empathy). Rules of evidence so accusation is not enough. Even so, we are by no means a homogenized people. We can be diverse, but still live together mostly peaceably.

[GuyGone]

It seems that a lot of human morality involves avoiding extremes.  We mostly agree that criminals need to be punished or at least prevented from committing crimes by incarceration or fines or something (presumably to match their potential danger to the rest of us).  Some people believe in the death penalty for certain crimes, some don't believe it should ever be used, but we all (or at least most of us) recognize that we might very well tell criminals to justify their "existence" (think parole boards) in ways that would be immoral if everyone was expected to do so.

 

Maybe morality and immorality is defined by the amount of suffering you cause to those around you?  Or maybe by your willingness to make others suffer for your benefit? (that would be why a parole board would give early release to one prisoner who indicates a determination to "go straight" and not to another who shows no change of nature, intent, or character).

 

Of course, if we use that measure, we still need something resembling an objective standard.  Otherwise we're governed by the campus snowflakes who faint if they hear an idea they disagree with, and claim mental harm from every disagreeable opinion.  So we'd have to do something to measure actual harm (which the courts try to do in civil cases).

[sdelsolray]

...

Of course, if we use that measure, we still need something resembling an objective standard.  Otherwise we're governed by the campus snowflakes who faint if they hear an idea they disagree with, and claim mental harm from every disagreeable opinion.  So we'd have to do something to measure actual harm (which the courts try to do in civil cases).

 

 

We have something akin to objective morality in certain laws proscribing and forbidding certain behaviors.  However, those laws (and any underlying morals or ethics, if any), can and do change.  Many don't however and have been around for tens of thousands of years.  There are other moral and ethical behaviors which are not the subject of law, but of social norms and expectations.  They are often vary among different societies and often change over time.  There are additional ones of which societies have not yet reached consensus, i.e., half the folks believe the behavior is moral and the other half believe it is immoral.   Morals are "objective" only to an extent, although it can be a large extent in many situations.

 

A simple explanation is that each person forms their own opinion as to what is or is not moral or ethical.  Folks learn most of this stuff from others, or by themselves.  Opinions can change.

 

Many religions teach that each immoral act is equally bad and some followers of that teaching get confused because human societies, by and large, issue measured punishment for immoral acts.  Some behaviors receive more punishment than others.  Most societies consider that moral.  Some others didn't or don't. 

 

When theists invoke a god and claim morality only comes from it, they are merely projecting their own moral opinions upon that god.  Most are taught to do this as little children and after.  It's much simpler to avoid an unnecessary surrogate and speak for yourself.

[Mike D]

nearly all of us agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong. 

 

Yes, but right and wrong are human constructs.   So are "sins", "morality" and "laws".  As children we have to be taught these things by our parents because we don't come microchipped or hard wired with these concepts. 

 

We could detect some things through reason and emotion, for example killing other people might be wrong because 1. their loved ones don't like it and will come after your ass, and 2. you might feel some sort of empathy/remorse for the person you killed.   But a purely rational psychopath with neither of those obstacles likely would have no objection to killing others.

 

i think since the majority of the population is not psychopathic, our laws, morality, etc. tend to reflect the majority of the population, at least where the population has any say in it.  However, in a dictatorship where a sociopath is in power, that might not be the case. 

 

As they say, "might makes right".

[midniterider]

Morality is a consensus agreement of behavior.

 

Of course the problem is that people can't seem to agree on anything so morality is flexible.

 

...

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality

[qadeshet]

"Why do we matter?"

 

We don't matter. A hundred years from now, no one will care whether or not we existed. All we can do is the best we can while we're here.

[GuyGone]

It sounds like the consensus is that might makes right.  But at the risk of running afoul of Goodwin's law, that would imply that when the Nazis murdered the Jews, they were morally right because they had the power.  Which means it would be morally wrong to oppose them.  The same would apply to Stalin's murders and Mao's murders, and those of any other tyranny.  It would even apply to ISIS today; as long as they have power, they are morally right to behead infidels and throw gays off the roofs of buildings.

 

I doubt most of us would agree that all those examples represent morally right actions.  But the question is, why not?  What makes those actions wrong, in a way that we can generally apply?

 

Not long back, I had a conversation with someone where they made the comment that "you have to be true to yourself".  I replied that  Charlie Manson was true to himself.

 

The point is that Christians have often claimed that without God, the Bible, or some other standard of morality, anything goes.  If society decides to round up all the Jews, or all the Christians or all the non-vegans and execute them, there is no basis for not doing so.  If the standard for morality is that we all do whatever we want, then the Christians are right and Charles Manson's ethics are no worse than any of ours.

 

We can argue that the Bible (pick the ten commandments as an example) codify moral rules that have been around a long time and exist in other traditions (to avoid distractions, let's focus on the five that don't involve God).  But even if the rules like "don't murder your neighbor for his wife or his donkey" are universal, why are they universal?  Is there any basis for moral action other than who has the most guns, biggest club, or strongest army?  Can we say anything is wrong, or are all moral rules out the window?  And if there is no objective morality, then (back to my original question), why do rescuers look for lost hikers and firefighters enter burning buildings?  What causes us to not just say "meh, let them die"?

 

I'm not saying that the Hitlers, Stalins, Maos and ISIS-types can't get away with using their power to do whatever they want.  I'm asking why we mostly agree that those things are wrong, and whether it is possible to have any kind of objective morality.  Or, more precisely, why we do?  Because very few of us would be willing to say that we think all those mas murderers are right.  Obviously I've picked extremes to make the point, but once we get past the rock-throwing stage of civilization, cultures develop a sense of right and wrong.  We don't all agree on every aspect of it, but I'm trying to get to the question of why we have one at all.  And why, as cultures become more advanced, are we less willing to accept mistreatment as normal?  Very few people in this country would consider honor killings to be moral, although there are people in the world (and immigrants here) who do.

 

I'm not defending Christianity, so no assumptions about that, please.  But a lot of our morality, in this country, is based on Christian principles.  once Christianity is gone, is it anything goes?  Will we stop rescuing earthquake victims, or is there something else that drives us to do so?  Will we one day vote to become Nazi Germany, where those who are deemed to be useless (by someone in authority) will be disposed of?  Or is there something that will hold us back?

[midniterider]

It sounds like the consensus is that might makes right.  But at the risk of running afoul of Goodwin's law, that would imply that when the Nazis murdered the Jews, they were morally right because they had the power.  Which means it would be morally wrong to oppose them.  The same would apply to Stalin's murders and Mao's murders, and those of any other tyranny.  It would even apply to ISIS today; as long as they have power, they are morally right to behead infidels and throw gays off the roofs of buildings.

 

When God drowns every human being on earth in a great flood, or tells Israel to go to the promised land and kill everyone there, does his might make right?  Why is God an example of morality?

 

The point is that Christians have often claimed that without God, the Bible, or some other standard of morality, anything goes.  If society decides to round up all the Jews, or all the Christians or all the non-vegans and execute them, there is no basis for not doing so.  If the standard for morality is that we all do whatever we want, then the Christians are right and Charles Manson's ethics are no worse than any of ours.

 

The standard is that generally we try not to harm someone because we understand what pain is and are averse to it. Knowing this, we wouldnt want to inflict pain on someone else. People have empathy, compassion, as well as fear of retribution and fear of the law.  This is our human standard for morality. Most of the population rigorously raises their children to be kind to others so most of the population is kind to others. God and the bible are irrelevant to morality.

 

We can argue that the Bible (pick the ten commandments as an example) codify moral rules that have been around a long time and exist in other traditions (to avoid distractions, let's focus on the five that don't involve God).  But even if the rules like "don't murder your neighbor for his wife or his donkey" are universal, why are they universal?  Is there any basis for moral action other than who has the most guns, biggest club, or strongest army?  Can we say anything is wrong, or are all moral rules out the window?  And if there is no objective morality, then (back to my original question), why do rescuers look for lost hikers and firefighters enter burning buildings?  What causes us to not just say "meh, let them die"?

 

Some people get paid to run into burning buildings. Other people just do it because they are nice. If someone was raised by wolves and not humans would he be able to live in our society (under our morality) without some sort of long term training? Doubtful. 

 

If morality is an objective fact why do Christians believe that God is the only distribution source for it? If something is a fact, isn't it a fact for everyone?

 

I'm not saying that the Hitlers, Stalins, Maos and ISIS-types can't get away with using their power to do whatever they want.  I'm asking why we mostly agree that those things are wrong, and whether it is possible to have any kind of objective morality.  Or, more precisely, why we do?  Because very few of us would be willing to say that we think all those mas murderers are right.  Obviously I've picked extremes to make the point, but once we get past the rock-throwing stage of civilization, cultures develop a sense of right and wrong.  We don't all agree on every aspect of it, but I'm trying to get to the question of why we have one at all.

 

I suspect people got tired of being beat up or seeing their family members beat up or killed so perhaps they evolved this sense of morality within their society, probably from the caveman days which seemed to work out pretty good and has been passed down through generations since then.

 

  And why, as cultures become more advanced, are we less willing to accept mistreatment as normal?  Very few people in this country would consider honor killings to be moral, although there are people in the world (and immigrants here) who do.

 

That's a good question.The Crusades and Inquisition were commissioned by men of God, supposedly using morality obtained from God and the bible. Looking back, we know that these actions were 'wrong.' Christians know that these actions were wrong. We know that honor killings (under the guise of some Islamic religious context) are wrong. If we know that these rotten activities were based on religion then why would we think that the source of morality was God (or Allah) or religion? If we know that these religion-based atrocities are immoral then the source of morality does not come from religion. It comes from people.  Morality evolves with the times.

 

I'm not defending Christianity, so no assumptions about that, please.  But a lot of our morality, in this country, is based on Christian principles.  once Christianity is gone, is it anything goes? 

 

I'm not sure. Japanese are by and large Shinto (83%). Japanese Christians are 2% (http://www.religionfacts.com/japan). China is similar with Taoism and Confucianism being the biggies (87%) and Christianity once again at 2%. These countries seem to have some moral fiber even though there is little to no Christianity there. This can only mean that Christianity does not own morality.

 

Will we stop rescuing earthquake victims, or is there something else that drives us to do so?  Will we one day vote to become Nazi Germany, where those who are deemed to be useless (by someone in authority) will be disposed of?  Or is there something that will hold us back?

 

Japan just had an earthquake. Did the predominantly Shinto population not rescue anyone?

 

Is 'objective morality' the thread you are hanging onto to believe that God may exist? I don't suppose there is anything wrong with feeling that morality is a stone cold fact. Nor is there anything wrong with belief in a God. Things will probably continue on the same no matter.

[LifeCycle]

Do we matter? Are we just parasites doing what nature needs us to do just as fire breathes new life into a forest after it's consumed everything with its flame? Do maggots matter? Do they care if they matter as they ingest the rotten flesh off of once living creatures?

 

I dunno, let's ask Mr Owl. 

[♦ Fuego ♦]

"The point is that Christians have often claimed that without God, the Bible, or some other standard of morality, anything goes."

 

A followup, just because a religion or philosophy has written down things that it says are right and wrong, we still see that the followers of such things have to choose to follow. Some pastors who preach the right and wrong of the Bible turn around and rape kids in the congregation, or embezzle money. Really there is no difference (such as being born-again) between a believer and an atheist. Except that perhaps atheists don't have the extra mental baggage of imagining invisible friends and foes. It always comes down to a choice.

[sdelsolray]

It sounds like the consensus is that might makes right.  But at the risk of running afoul of Goodwin's law, that would imply that when the Nazis murdered the Jews, they were morally right because they had the power.  Which means it would be morally wrong to oppose them.  The same would apply to Stalin's murders and Mao's murders, and those of any other tyranny.  It would even apply to ISIS today; as long as they have power, they are morally right to behead infidels and throw gays off the roofs of buildings.

 

Then you would be wrong.  Consensus does not mean "might is right".  It means agreement by a majority of the population within a particular group.  The Nazis were not a majority, but a minority that took power by force, intimidation and deceit.  Same for Stalin and Mao and other tyrannical governments.  Their actions were (are) not morally right, at least according the a majority of other humans on the planet, i.e., the consensus.

 

I doubt most of us would agree that all those examples represent morally right actions.  But the question is, why not?  What makes those actions wrong, in a way that we can generally apply?

 

Your Godwin and poor analogies already failed above.  Why continue them?

 

Not long back, I had a conversation with someone where they made the comment that "you have to be true to yourself".  I replied that  Charlie Manson was true to himself.

 

Manson was a psychopath, and you used him as a counter to the statement, "You have to be true to yourself."?  Why would you use Charles Manson's mental illness in such a way?  It doesn't make any rational sense.

 

The point is that Christians have often claimed that without God, the Bible, or some other standard of morality, anything goes.  If society decides to round up all the Jews, or all the Christians or all the non-vegans and execute them, there is no basis for not doing so.  If the standard for morality is that we all do whatever we want, then the Christians are right and Charles Manson's ethics are no worse than any of ours.

 

Christian xenophobic dogma, with a side salads of strawman, false dichotomy and other irrational nonsense.  Christians (and apparently you) ignore the relevant empirical evidence which demonstrates that human societies create, maintain and adjust moral behavior within their groups.  The strawman that any "standard" for morality to do whatever we want is simply not supported by the evidence.  Not.  At.  All.  The false dichotomy that we either have some chosen sky fairy's morals or no morals at all is infantile and typical of disingenuous Christian apologetics.  Your adding Charles Manson to the discussion is absurd.  Manson is a psychopath.  Human societies are not.

 

We can argue that the Bible (pick the ten commandments as an example) codify moral rules that have been around a long time and exist in other traditions (to avoid distractions, let's focus on the five that don't involve God). 

 

No need to argue that.  It is verified fact that the non-"worship me" commandments from the 10 Commandments come from the morals of earlier human societies.

 

But even if the rules like "don't murder your neighbor for his wife or his donkey" are universal, why are they universal? 

 

Such a moral rule has been around for a long time and will likely remain around for a long time.  As I explained above in another post, some moral rules are more objective/long lasting/universal than others.  This is hardly surprising.  The evidence strongly suggests that groups which employ such long-lasting morals survive (as a group) and ones that don't don't.

 

Is there any basis for moral action other than who has the most guns, biggest club, or strongest army? 

 

Yes.

 

Can we say anything is wrong, or are all moral rules out the window? 

 

I do not understand your false dichotomy, which is probably a good thing.

 

And if there is no objective morality, then (back to my original question), why do rescuers look for lost hikers and firefighters enter burning buildings?  What causes us to not just say "meh, let them die"?

 

I suggest you actually do the hard work and research your two questions above.  You seem confused and addicted to the false notion that without objective morality the world will end.  That's Christian dogma speaking, not rational thought.

 

I'm not saying that the Hitlers, Stalins, Maos and ISIS-types can't get away with using their power to do whatever they want.  I'm asking why we mostly agree that those things are wrong, and whether it is possible to have any kind of objective morality.  Or, more precisely, why we do?  Because very few of us would be willing to say that we think all those mas murderers are right.  Obviously I've picked extremes to make the point, but once we get past the rock-throwing stage of civilization, cultures develop a sense of right and wrong.  We don't all agree on every aspect of it, but I'm trying to get to the question of why we have one at all.  And why, as cultures become more advanced, are we less willing to accept mistreatment as normal?  Very few people in this country would consider honor killings to be moral, although there are people in the world (and immigrants here) who do.

 

Societies have moral and ethical rules of behavior.  It's that simple.

 

I'm not defending Christianity, so no assumptions about that, please. 

 

I think you are, at least based on your posts in this thread.

 

But a lot of our morality, in this country, is based on Christian principles.

 

Yes, Christians claim a patent, trademark and copyright on certain humans behaviors.  I have yet to find any that originated within Christianity.  All were borrowed or copied from earlier societies. 

 

Once Christianity is gone, is it anything goes? 

 

Of course not.  But you already know this, don't you?

 

Will we stop rescuing earthquake victims, or is there something else that drives us to do so? 

 

Since most folks on this planet are not Christians, and given the evidence that many of those non-Christians attempt to rescue earthquake victims, your question is based on a false premise.

 

Will we one day vote to become Nazi Germany, where those who are deemed to be useless (by someone in authority) will be disposed of?  Or is there something that will hold us back?

 

Time will tell.

[rjn]

The Earthquake analogy is actually kinda interesting: why is it that in Japan - a very secular society, albeit influenced by its Buddhist and Shinto traditions - civilians volunteered during the Fukushima catastrophe, whereas in (at least nominally) Christian Haiti, chaos ensued? Of course, Japan is a much more stable country than Haiti, so that may have had an impact, but the conclusion remains: (christian) religion is not a prerequisite for morality.

[hockeyfan70]

About a year ago, my small group at our church went through a comparative religions book. Each one of us had to lead and teach about a certain religion, so because of my recent trip to SE Asia, I picked Buddhism. After reading up on it, I mentioned that if I wasn't a Christian, I would probably be a Buddhist. Now that I'm not a Christian, I doubt I would become a Buddhist, but some aspects of it definitely appealed to me.

[rjn]

 After reading up on it, I mentioned that if I wasn't a Christian, I would probably be a Buddhist.

 

What did the people in your congregation say? Buddhism is a heathen, godless practice!

[hockeyfan70]

Well, since at least the guys in my small group are kind of the typical evangelical, when I talked about how I liked it because it seemed to for the most part promote peace, they looked at me like I was a hippie.

[rjn]

Well, since at least the guys in my small group are kind of the typical evangelical, when I talked about how I liked it because it seemed to for the most part promote peace, they looked at me like I was a hippie.

 

So what was their attitude towards other religions? I'm surprised you even did a study on other beliefs, if your group, as you say, were typical evangelicals. Going by what people on this forum has said, it seems like the average evangelical is extremely ignorant of the World outside of their tiny little bubble. Did they find any "redeeming" factors in any non-Christian faith?

[hockeyfan70]

 

Well, since at least the guys in my small group are kind of the typical evangelical, when I talked about how I liked it because it seemed to for the most part promote peace, they looked at me like I was a hippie.

 

So what was their attitude towards other religions? I'm surprised you even did a study on other beliefs, if your group, as you say, were typical evangelicals. Going by what people on this forum has said, it seems like the average evangelical is extremely ignorant of the World outside of their tiny little bubble. Did they find any "redeeming" factors in any non-Christian faith?

 

It was actually a pretty good book. It wasn't all critical of other religions, it showed some of the good things as well. It kind of reminds me of the tone from the book I'm reading "50 Reasons People Give For Believing In A God" by Guy P. Harrison. He tells the truth, but he does it in a respectful manner.

 

There was a definite weird dynamic in that group. You had some who led our clothing ministry where people could just come to the church and get free clothes, and they were great; and then you had others who were end times nutjobs and die hard conservatives (no offense) who always talked about the war on christianity. I don't remember who suggested the book, but besides some snarky comments, people genuinely tried to keep an open mind.