Strong Atheism

[Asimov]

Wrong. In fact, morality is MOST important when the individual is disconnected from society. On a desert island, the requirements of survival are of vital importance. In society, we cooperate : that's how we make our lives better. Other people help us fulfill the material requirements of our lives.

 

 

If an individual IS society, then of course.

[NorthenSun]

But it's not - by any philosophical definition.

If it is based on your emotions, imagination and desires, then yes it is subjective. But it's not interpretation either. It's make-believe. If you're talking about interpretation, you have to *interpret*, not impose your own prejudices (will-driven) on reality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

One cannot separate reasoning from emotions, and remain a human. I don't impose my prejudices, but they are still there, and they will have an input on any moral decision. Azimov is right, since each preson has their own perspective, a workable common moral worldview can only be established through a compromise with other individuals. This give and take, discussion, argument,etc. , which is hopefully carried out in a free and honest but repectful manner, results in the moral basis of society, but it is subjective.

 

But, Francois, it you believe that you can write an objective code based on "just the facts, maam" then go for it.

[Francois Tremblay]

If an individual IS society, then of course.

 

That makes no sense. Society is the result of the interaction of individuals. An individual alone on a dessert island can only interact with his environment.

 

 

One cannot separate reasoning from emotions, and remain a human.

 

That makes no sense either. Reasoning and emotions *are* different things. When I make a deduction that leads to a proposition, that's reasoning. When I feel angry about that proposition, that's emotion. I'm not going to let my anger get in the way of the fact that I deduced it - that's called "objectivity".

 

 

it is subjective.

 

Well, all I can say is that you're wrong. Interpretation is not subjective, it is based on facts. If you don't think that's possible, you have to explain why.

 

 

 

But, Francois, it you believe that you can write an objective code based on "just the facts, maam" then go for it.

 

Why would I ? It's already been done by David Kelley in his wonderful book "Logical Structure of Objectivism". I don't feel the need to re-write the wheel, so to speak.

[- AUB -]

One cannot separate reasoning from emotions, and remain a human

 

Why not? Stoics did it, logicians do it, I do it, emotions can be screened from reasoning using the scientific method, which is designed to remove all such subjective bias, if the result is free of emotion then we can use it even with emotion and it will be an application of the truth.

[NorthenSun]

Star Trek Generations. Data. He wanted to be human, or at least understand humans, but he lacked emotions. One of the main sub plots of the series was his journey to understand what emotions are, and thus become human-like.

 

You can't have justice without mercy, and mercy is an emotional attribute.

[Francois Tremblay]

Oh geeze. Arguing from Star Trek now ? THAT's desperate.

 

Mercy has nothing to do with justice. Justice is to objectively give what is earned. Mercy is to subjectively give unearned pardon. They contradict - you can only be just or merciful.

[Asimov]

That makes no sense. Society is the result of the interaction of individuals. An individual alone on a dessert island can only interact with his environment.

 

I'm aware of that, Francois, but morality only exists within a social construct. If it's one man on a desert island, he is the "society" so to speak, therefore morality does not apply.

[Asimov]

Oh geeze. Arguing from Star Trek now ? THAT's desperate.

 

Mercy has nothing to do with justice. Justice is to objectively give what is earned. Mercy is to subjectively give unearned pardon. They contradict - you can only be just or merciful.

 

Which is another problem for God, who Christians tout as the absolute Justice, but he's also merciful.

[Kryten]

You guys cannot agree, therefore the Bible must be true!

 

 

Oops. Sorry, I've been reading too much Christian apologetics...

 

 

Never mind.

[Asimov]

You guys cannot agree, therefore the Bible must be true!

Oops.  Sorry,  I've been reading too much Christian apologetics...

Never mind.

 

 

Even if we could agree, the bible must be true!!

 

The bible is axiomatic, Kryten....

[Valgeir]

One thing I'd like to clarify... your belief is that morality is objective, yet changes depending on societal and individual scenarios? If I have this wrong say so. I've always equated objectivity to at least some extent with being absolute, which is why I've always been opposed to the thought of objective morality- there is, no matter what Christians say, no absolute moral code.

[Francois Tremblay]

One thing I'd like to clarify... your belief is that morality is objective, yet changes depending on societal and individual scenarios?

 

What does that mean exactly ? Values do not change. They are applied to different contexts, of course. We always need to sustain our metabolism, but we can do it by eating all sorts of different things.

 

 

I've always equated objectivity to at least some extent with being absolute

 

No.. objectivity means based on the facts of reality, instead of our emotions, desires, whims, etc.

[- AUB -]

Valgeir

 

A common missunderstanding, absolute in this sense is a theistic term, used to quite dissention or doubt, as it couldnt possibly be wrong. Moral or "Truth" absolutes are a product of tryanny, communism, Nazism, Islam and xtianity all have absolutes, they are wrong, intelectually, scientifically and moraly.

There are real absolutes, such as in maths, but abstract, and sometimes logic can prove one, just as the certainty of existance, but a absolute moral is a blind, unresponsive and made up lie. In other words subjective, so much so that it is proclaimed absolute to compensate, as subjective ethics are often impractical. There needs to be uniformity, so one set of rules only, but they are simply the product of culture and opinion, not based on a tentative and honest desire to find the truth.

 

Objective morality is derived not by decree but observation, the empirical method, i.e. science, and reason. It is subject to change as new information is added, and is dictated by the reality of human nature, and is modifed by experiance and success or failer of application. It is responsive, absolutes are blind. Take gays, thanks to empirical methods we know it is natural and positive, without that knowledge a incorrect declaration (such as the xtian one) would remain.

 

there is, no matter what Christians say, no absolute moral code.

 

 

Right, but objective morality is secular, theists may use th term to describe their absolute one, but only on the assumption that god is objective therefore so are his ethics. They miss-use the term, true objectivity is science and logic based.

We don't assume a set of ethics is objective, we search for it. Objective facts can change, like a chemical reaction, or metallurgical alteration, if our nature was differant our morals would be, and society as well as the individual are not constants, except that they are constantly objective.

[Francois Tremblay]

Listen to -AUB-. He has the patience to write more than I do

[Valgeir]

I'm still a little confused. It seems almost as if the argument presented is for and against an absolute moral code simultaneously. My belief system, based on observation and logic, is that there is no "right" and "wrong" at all in a universal moral sense, only in an individual or societal sense. Like, with the "So Hitler was right?" thing brought up earlier, no, because there is no right. Also, as far as my particular moral code goes, I strongly disapprove of Hitler's beliefs and actions and take an opposing stance. However, despite the fact that he caused grievous harm to many, it can not be said that he was "wrong" on a moral standpoint because not everyones' morals dictate that (mine do, but obviously his moral code did not oppose his actions).

[Francois Tremblay]

Well then you are obviously confused. I never brought up the word "absolute" - other people did. I never argued for an "absolute morality". Only pointing out that morality is objective.

[Valgeir]

By the definition of "subjective" as "Particular to a given person; personal" I take the stance of morality existing in purely a subjective sense. Some of the things said have confused me, and I'm not certain if your stance is mutually exclusive to this or not.

 

If it isn't then I'm on board for your group.

[NorthenSun]

Why not? Stoics did it, logicians do it, I do it, emotions can be screened from reasoning using the scientific method, which is designed to remove all such subjective bias, if the result is free of emotion then we can use it even with emotion and it will be an application of the truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

AUB

Of course I agree with you. The scientific method provides an immensely valuable tool for improving the lot of humanity. And certainly, society would be much better off if people acted more "logically", such as eliminating unhealthy or wasteful activities like smoking, eating excess fat, (arguing on Ex-whatever internet sites), etc. But we have evolved as a species with emotions. There must be some evolutionary advantage which is gained by this mode of thought process. People have a passion for different things, and when they get together to form a society (a moral system) the emotions inevitably come into play. The set of rules or laws is the result of compromise among people's subjective world views. A good example is the compromise between individual rights and the responsibility to society. We allow people the freedom to run their own lives, even though it results in some stupid behavior at times. How much is too much freedom, its subjective.

 

Francois

As for science fiction, why do you think the original Star Trek series is still shown on television. Its not for the cheesy acting and cheap props, its because almost every episode is a morality play which pits human intelligence, reasoning and values against an alien with some "alien" form of reasoning. SciFi allows the audience to examine what-if questions in a manner not ordinarily encountered in everyday situations.

 

In a way the people at this web site and atheists in general are "alien" to many other people, especially Christians. "You mean you don't believe in GOD?" Hopefully if they spend some time here they will come to see that we are friendly aliens.

[- AUB -]

NorthenSun

 

Did you read my lengthy response to your "Christianity is totally evil" comments on

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=56

 

 

But we have evolved as a species with emotions. There must be some evolutionary advantage

 

Yes but not a truthseeking or rational one. Evolution is not about morality, it is descriptive not presciptive, we cannot determine truth or ethics logicaly using emotion, just because it is a survival tool. Ethics can be an interlectual persuit as it was for the cynics or stoics, they got better ethical standards through reason than any faith. Empathy is needed to start the process, but if we allow emotion to rule, we invite error. We must first pursue empirical facts, totally without bias.

 

the emotions inevitably come into play.

 

yes, but should they?

 

We allow people the freedom to run their own lives, even though it results in some stupid behavior at times.

 

A rational standard, defended by Pain and other interlects on pragmantic grounds, very few ethical principles that work cannot be derived from reason.

 

How much is too much freedom, its subjective.

 

 

No, do no harm, good enough for hipocrates, and for us. A objective standard once you determine and define harm.

 

 

Valgeir

 

By the definition of "subjective" as "Particular to a given person; personal" I take the stance of morality existing in purely a subjective sense. Some of the things said have confused me, and I'm not certain if your stance is mutually exclusive to this or not.

 

We have differant values, enjoyments, inclinations etc, these are the subjective elements, but when it comes to civil or legal rights, respect for life, responsiblity, one objective standard applies. Determining those values that are a person's individual right, (right to be gay, watch porn etc) and what must apply to all as a single humanity is easier with an empirical basis than any other way.

[Francois Tremblay]

By the definition of "subjective" as "Particular to a given person; personal"

 

That's a bit vague. In a sense, everything is "personal" : only individuals think and act. But the laws of nature are the same for everyone.

[chefranden]

One cannot separate reasoning from emotions, and remain a human. I don't impose my prejudices, but they are still there, and they will have an input on any moral decision. 

 

I agree. Studies of brain damaged people that have had their abilities to emote damaged show that they can not make decisions at all or make the wrong decision even though they are still able to use facts logically to find the best decision.

 

See the work of Antonio Damasio.

[Francois Tremblay]

No chefranden, wrong. We never said that emotional assessments were not part of our decisional process in some way. Our only claim is that reasoning-events and emotional-events are clearly distinguishable, and that only the former must be used to arrive specifically at a truth-value. In short, I may feel like I need to believe in something, but that cannot be my justification for holding something as true.

 

Your burden of proof is to demonstrate that emotions are needed to justify something as true. For example, tell me what emotion is needed to validate the following syllogism :

 

 

1. Socrates is human.

2. Humans are mortal.

3. Socrates is mortal (from 1 and 2)

[chefranden]

No chefranden, wrong. We never said that emotional assessments were not part of our decisional process in some way. Our only claim is that reasoning-events and emotional-events are clearly distinguishable, and that only the former must be used to arrive specifically at a truth-value. In short, I  may feel like I need to believe in something, but that cannot be my justification for holding something as true.

 

Your burden of proof is to demonstrate that emotions are needed to justify something as true. For example, tell me what emotion is needed to validate the following syllogism :

1. Socrates is human.

2. Humans are mortal.

3. Socrates is mortal (from 1 and 2)

 

Interest.

[Asimov]

Your burden of proof is to demonstrate that emotions are needed to justify something as true. For example, tell me what emotion is needed to validate the following syllogism :

1. Socrates is human.

2. Humans are mortal.

3. I hate mortals.

4. Socrates is mortal (from 1 and 2)

5. I hate Socrates (from 1 and 2 and 3).

 

 

[Francois Tremblay]

LOL at Asimov.

 

chefranden : Interest ? Please explain in which step the emotion of "interest" is needed :

 

"1. Socrates is human.

2. Humans are mortal.

3. Socrates is mortal (from 1 and 2)"

 

Is it step 1, 2 or 3 ? Or more than one ?