BuddyFerris Posted August 23, 2007 Author Share Posted August 23, 2007 "So what's the point of being moral if God doesn't exist? It's the same "point" that people should acknowledge if God does exist: because the happiness and suffering of other human beings matter to us." Dano, Tell me how that plays out when the going gets rough. Issues of conscience and character seem to become malleable when personal circumstances change for the worse. (This isn't a God question, just curious.) I've watched the process with disappointment as men of substance devolve into selfishness when a pay raise is on the line or an opportunity they really want. It seems to be worse with degrees of separation; this community group chooses it's own best interests over those of another, this race over another, this country... etc. In the absence of an external standard, morals at every level seem to be convenient choices more than altruistic convictions. Thoughts? Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 "In the absence of an external standard, morals at every level seem to be convenient choices more than altruistic convictions. Thoughts?!" My initial response, based on observation, in the presence of an external standard, morals at every level seem to be convenient choices more than altruistic convictions. Unless, of course, god doesn't exist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted August 23, 2007 Author Share Posted August 23, 2007 Why is it that Christians are the only ones who come on here and inform us of every little reason why they can't post? "Work calls... Pandors, No insult intended; just an attempt at manners, and perhaps trying to head off the common criticism of ignoring other responders. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 In the absence of an external standard, morals at every level seem to be convenient choices more than altruistic convictions. Buddy I assert that every morality that has ever been demonstrated has natural underpinnings. I don’t believe in an external standard. The Bible is written by humans for humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 In the absence of an external standard, morals at every level seem to be convenient choices more than altruistic convictions. Thoughts?Buddy There is no such thing as an "external standard." There is only cultural conditioning, and that is by human cultures. How do you get an external standard apart from that? Please explain. I am new to this thread and haven't read it all, but with this statement -- you just can't be serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 I am very much afraid he is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted August 24, 2007 Author Share Posted August 24, 2007 ...Man....a lot of stuff to sort through.... Hitler played on already existing prejudices of some Christians. Christianity is useful.....just like any other prejudice of the people can be useful...to....governments and rulers. Fuck church! We have had enough! Wanna be Christian? Can't stop you. But no more Church...or dogmatic ideologies ( certain ways that communism has been practiced) mixed in with government. Enough is enough! I stand by what I said: Baptist ministers, and other protestant ministers had ugly opinions about native Americans when America was expanding west....if I remember correctly.... Which ten commands? Even scripture advocates slaughtering heathens. Buddy can cry about Christianity being misused , and misrepresented......but my point is that God is not available for interviews when scripture is being interpreted. So much for absolute objective moral standards from God. God is a moral relativist anyways..( from what we see in scripture of him )...The Christian religion is faulty equipment. Communism in and of itself has nothing to do with atheism, or Humanism based on Free Thought. You see old man Humanists can be dynamic as they have no fictional Infallible Tyrant with omnipowers. There is no ancient comic book tied around our necks....unlike the Christian religion is. The bible is the cornerstone of Christianity. Totally unnecessary problems will flare up from Christianity from time to time....because it is not rational. Faith is irrational. Belief in the bibles God is irrational. The bible is a mixed bag. Encouraging rational thought. Encouraging anti-intellectualism. Encouraging kindness. Encouraging prejudice..... Come on...no more of this bullshit. Mankey, You're right. Hitler played on existing prejudices of some Christians. 'Manifest destiny' provided an unexamined excuse for our treatment of native Americans; it formed and excused our racial prejudices that perpetuated our enslavement of Africans and others as well. Did God intervene? Doesn't look like it from the history books. Communism has nothing to do with atheism? Pre-Marx perhaps; Marx himself was rabidly anti-Christianity and religion. The communist society Marx envisioned has never been implemented, and it remains theoretical; his envisioned transitional period, the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, never rose above tyranny. Modern communism is by definition a prejudice against free thought, personal accomplishment, independent intellectual pursuit, dissent, and the church. Humanism (based on free thought) has, as you say, the benefit of being dynamic and changing as circumstances arise. Does that mean that each individual is independently free to choose beliefs and values? Looks like a risky proposition if two are going to relate to each other. One might understandably choose a course of action for the 'good of the other' without having fully explored the implications. E.g., our national welfare program that has disenfranchised the poor and destroyed their families. Having said that, let me agree at least in tone with some things you've said. I am fed up with dogmatic Christians (as well as dogmatic non-Christians) telling me what my priorities ought to be. I'm tired of churches fighting among themselves; even more so of Christians fighting over trivialities. I deeply enjoy and appreciate people who do good as a function of character and life choice. Where do responsibility and accountability fit in your thoughts? Responsible for what and to what/whom? Responsible to yourself along? Not a trick question; just curious. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted August 24, 2007 Author Share Posted August 24, 2007 There is no such thing as an "external standard." There is only cultural conditioning, and that is by human cultures. How do you get an external standard apart from that? Please explain. I am new to this thread and haven't read it all, but with this statement -- you just can't be serious. Yep. Serious. Welcome, by the way. I'll grant you the process of cultural conditioning, both for good and ill. Others here in the Ex-C crowd will propose a 'natural law' for you; natural law being inherent in nature, discernible by reasonable people, and universally applicable. And external. If the day should come that we shake off the shackles of cultural norms and morality so that each might choose independently what path they will follow, we will have universally what we have fostered currently in the inner city. Teens in inner city poverty are bombarded regularly with violet encounters, affluent drug-dealer friends, successful rejection of education by popular older teens, virtually all of which is the result of choices made by us in the 70's. I know Baltimore best; it's much worse than described here. In the absence of an external standard, morals at every level seem to be convenient choices more than altruistic convictions. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted August 24, 2007 Author Share Posted August 24, 2007 So no, I don't think fairness is a problem that bothers the average Christian in debate, so I don't see that even handedness is something to be aspired to. When fighting the devil, the only way is to get down in the hole and grab him by the tail... It's a Mad Freddie deal, daemon fighting, but we've already become daemons any way Grandpa, In the noble defense of reason, we may be unreasonable; in proof of logic's supremacy, an illogical argument is acceptable. I get it; we've become demons already. Couldn't resist. It doesn't matter greatly in the overall scheme of things. ...unless God does exist. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 There is no such thing as an "external standard." There is only cultural conditioning, and that is by human cultures. How do you get an external standard apart from that? Please explain. I am new to this thread and haven't read it all, but with this statement -- you just can't be serious. Yep. Serious. Welcome, by the way. I'll grant you the process of cultural conditioning, both for good and ill. Others here in the Ex-C crowd will propose a 'natural law' for you; natural law being inherent in nature, discernible by reasonable people, and universally applicable. And external. So you are serious -too bad. Thanks for the welcome and at least conceding that there is cultural conditioning. Others may propose "natural law" as some kind of standard and they are welcome to their views, but I would not want to put it that way. There is no law outside of those that human beings have fashioned for themselves. There is no universal standard, which means to me universally applicable at all times and places on the earth, through all societies. Are we talking about the human concept of justice? If so, please don't make me laugh. And no, even if it did exist, the "universal moral standard" is not and cannot be "external". I assume you mean eminating from somewhere outside the universe or nature, like from a god. I just don't buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 "So what's the point of being moral if God doesn't exist? It's the same "point" that people should acknowledge if God does exist: because the happiness and suffering of other human beings matter to us." And this is a natural phenomena of the human animal in most cases....despite that we are not consistent in it. Laws reflect this need. Humanism is based on these values. "In Buddy we trust" instead of "In a fictional invisible friend we trust" is too scary for Buddy to consider. We are social animals....despite the fact that we do things to undermine our basic needs sometimes. Perhaps we need more practice in being social animals ( this is what we are) than practicing wishful thinking....ie....being a fictional comic book characters "children". Buddy writes "Where do responsibility and accountability fit in your thoughts? Responsible for what and to what/whom? Responsible to yourself along? Not a trick question; just curious." I am stuck winging it ,keeping in mind ...that empathy and altruism not only feel good but they increase my odds of surviving emotionally as well as physically. We make mistakes in this area and there for forgiveness is very important many times. I want to study psychology, philosophy -ethics and logics, as well as become very familiar with the scientific method. John Lennon: "Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today... Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace... You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world... You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one" Buddy you forgot Vigiles post about situational ethics.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted August 24, 2007 Author Share Posted August 24, 2007 ... I assume you mean eminating from somewhere outside the universe, like from a god. I just don't buy it. For starters, by external I mean arising from that which is visible to all, observable in nature; hence, natural law, natural rights, or as the founders proposed from the same philosophical origins, inalienable rights, independent of individual choice, action, or belief. Not a trap, just a comment. Objections were raised to an external standard; we haven't gotten past that yet. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 ... I assume you mean eminating from somewhere outside the universe, like from a god. I just don't buy it. For starters, by external I mean arising from that which is visible to all, observable in nature; hence, natural law, natural rights, or as the founders proposed from the same philosophical origins, inalienable rights, independent of individual choice, action, or belief. Not a trap, just a comment. Objections were raised to an external standard; we haven't gotten past that yet. Buddy ...Except you can neither observe it, nor comment on it's nature, making it mere speculation at best, and special pleading at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted August 24, 2007 Author Share Posted August 24, 2007 ...Buddy, I can see why you would jump to this conclusion, but it's utterly ridiculous. I keep saying you're a smart guy, but sometimes it seems you are unable to capture nuance the same as your average binary-thinking Christian. First, there are no moral absolutes, even in your own religion. For every rule there is an exception. ... QUOTE(TexasFreethinker @ Sep 11 2005, 11:57 AM)I think there are moral absolutes, Name a single one. ... Prove me wrong. Vigile, Mankey pointed out that I neglected to comment on your post regarding situational ethics and the absence of absolutes. Here's the short version following your hypothetical natural disaster: Most people think that the moral systems can be very easily described and yet forget the complexity of situations that present themselves in our reality. Think for instance that we would normally choose to save the "most life" in any given natural disaster. Now you are given the case inwhich you can save a 1000 of one people or 100 of another. Instantly we decide to save the 1000, because that is 900 more lives to be saved. But what of the quality of life that you save? What if the 100 are people who benefit mankind while the 900 are serial killers? Who then decides which is the correct group to save? You? Me? The government? Is 900 serial killers death worth it to save 100 productive citizens? What if the 100 is all male and the 900 is half and half. Reverse that, the 100 is half and half and the 900 is all male? Is survival of the species to rule morality also? How many conditionalizations would it take to gain a viewpoint which we can agree upon? How do you relate such ideas together in order to gain a moral stance? Dealing with hypothetical cases is troublesome; especially when you do apple and orange questions, but we'll look at your case anyway. First, should you do anything at all? Why? You'll answer something like, "of course, save lives if you can." "Why? Because everybody knows you should, It's ...." It's what? It's based on the standard, the inherent value of human life. The available choices are do nothing or do what you can. One is immoral. Why? Without having asked the first question, your source begins offering answers and equivocations. The reason there is a dilemma in the first place is that there is an underlying external (to you) standard. ...it's too broad a statement to say that "stealing is immoral". Instead you must take a look at the circumstances around a specific act of stealing to determine whether or not it was moral. Here it appears your source may be confusing the general act with the specific excuse. Is taking something that doesn't belong to you illegal or wrong? Yes. Are there circumstances which might mitigate the theft? Perhaps. Does the act of stealing therefore become right? No, just understandable and perhaps excusable. ... If you want to get down to the simplest of terms, nature, there is no rule other than might wins ("might" could be strength, an adaptation, and/or ability to out-think or out-plan, and more). If such be true of mankind, then there is no altruism, no self-sacrifice, no charity, no benevolence, no deference to another. If all is strength or wit, none would take pity on a weaker brother, a less advantaged child, or a less fortunate country's people. Evidence suggests otherwise. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Is taking something that doesn't belong to you illegal or wrong? Yes. Are there circumstances which might mitigate the theft? Perhaps. Does the act of stealing therefore become right? No, just understandable and perhaps excusable. Despite your word play, you just described situational ethics. If stealing in some instances is understandable, then how is it also always wrong? For instance, would it be wrong for me to steal food to feed my daughter who would otherwise die of starvation? Let me phrase it another way, would it be moral for me to refuse to steal because stealing is always wrong and let my daughter die? Christian ethics don't have an answer to this question. Christian ethics demand eternal torture for lustful thoughts. If you want to get down to the simplest of terms, nature, there is no rule other than might wins ("might" could be strength, an adaptation, and/or ability to out-think or out-plan, and more).. This is a physical rule, not an ethic. The rule of nature is correct here. Morality necessarily develops out of this since moral systems actually help humanity survive, giving them an evolutionary advantage. You haven't even come close to proving that any sort of absolute morality exists. I continue to submit that dog-headed adherence to absolutes is in fact immoral in many instances and is a system of morality that cannot work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 President Bush seems to have a problem distinguishing between right and wrong... 'Looting' and 'Taking semi-spoiled food from a shop so a s not to starve in the flooded hell that was your home' are indistinguishable... but then 'The necessary invasion of Iraq because they are an Al Qaida strong hold' and 'international interference against a state with a positive dislike of Al Qaida' seems to be a problem too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 and as to 'might' winning always in nature... fallacy. Nature isn't that simple. Simple rule - Lions only take the old and sick wildebeest Observed fact - When an old,sick cow is 'not ready to die', lions who could take them easily been faced off. Yet the same lions will take a strong male on the same day, getting injured in the process... There is something else at play in those circumstances than 'simple' might. Nature tends to have subtle interactions that we don't, or no longer, fully understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 For starters, by external I mean arising from that which is visible to all, observable in nature; hence, natural law, natural rights, or as the founders proposed from the same philosophical origins, inalienable rights, independent of individual choice, action, or belief. Not a trap, just a comment. Objections were raised to an external standard; we haven't gotten past that yet.Buddy Nor will we get past it, Buddy. There is no such thing as an external standard visible to all, or "inalienable rights." What rights, apart from what is written by a man on a piece of paper? Do you seriously believe that "all men are created equal?" That was one of the inalienable rights recited by one of the founders. I say that human beings are a complex combination of genetics, cultural conditioning and circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 "So what's the point of being moral if God doesn't exist? It's the same "point" that people should acknowledge if God does exist: because the happiness and suffering of other human beings matter to us." Dano, Tell me how that plays out when the going gets rough. Issues of conscience and character seem to become malleable when personal circumstances change for the worse. (This isn't a God question, just curious.) I've watched the process with disappointment as men of substance devolve into selfishness when a pay raise is on the line or an opportunity they really want. It seems to be worse with degrees of separation; this community group chooses it's own best interests over those of another, this race over another, this country... etc. In the absence of an external standard, morals at every level seem to be convenient choices more than altruistic convictions. Thoughts? Buddy So without Jesus, Mohammed, bible God, Allah ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities ), I'm just an animal? Oh I forgot! We are all animals. Pretending that morality comes from Pagan mythology is nothing but self delusion by Homo Sapiens needing to have a reason for leaving the cave to kill Neanderthal. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Not to mention that Locke's property rights were exchanged for "pursuit of happiness" when the founders borrowed from him. Locke established property as an inalienable right as he was working for a landed aristocrat. None of his rights can be objectively established beyond a general agreement that they "all sound like good things we should all have." Buddy can work backward from a position of presuppositions and make it sound to the untrained observer that rights are truly inalienable and that rules are rigid and absolute. It takes flowery speech, sleight of hand, and a weaving away from the main points so that observers lose track. Ridding oneself of the presups, however, one can see plainly that rights and rules were established as an oil to smooth the rough edges so that people can live and work together in groups. No more, no less. That simply breaking one of these rules is worthy of eternal punishment or even eternal abandonment (however it's chosen to be interpreted) is laughable; as is the establishment of rules that go beyond accomplishing this most basic of tasks (such as punishment for thought crimes). The xian god said "I am," and xians have no problem accepting that. These same xians have a terrible time, however, understand the concept "It just is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted August 24, 2007 Author Share Posted August 24, 2007 ... would it be wrong for me to steal food to feed my daughter who would otherwise die of starvation? Let me phrase it another way, would it be moral for me to refuse to steal because stealing is always wrong and let my daughter die? You haven't even come close to proving that any sort of absolute morality exists. I continue to submit that dog-headed adherence to absolutes is in fact immoral in many instances and is a system of morality that cannot work. Vigile, thoughtful as always. Your example, though intended as a simplistic black and white situation, is a morass of difficulties if it is intended to prove a variability in right and wrong. Following your line of thought, there is truly a dilemma. Your daughter is hungry. Is the only option to steal? Hypothetically yes; realistically, perhaps not. You recognize the ethical violation by your use of the word 'steal', denoting a criminal act. You decline the obvious question 'from whom'. Does the victim of your theft suffer loss? Yes. To the same degree? Here's where the trouble with hypothetical situations appears. Yes, to the same degree. If you stole a loaf of bread, your daughter gained one meal, the victim lost one. Did it save your daughter's life? No, it prolonged her to the same degree that it deprived another. The difficulty with your proposal is that it tries to lump multiple choices and assumptions into a single moral decision; for example: - your daughter is hungry; why? Are there moral elements involved? - you have few resources; why? Poverty? Community dysfunction? Governmental policy? Someone else's selfishness? Moral elements here? - someone else has food, perhaps in excess of their needs; why? Fairly gained? Equitably available? Moral elements here? - you cannot appeal to the one with excess for help; why not? Cultural prohibitions? Community prejudices? Moral elements here? - are there others who could help, but do not? why not? - you are forced to steal or watch your daughter die; true? Perhaps, but it is not a single event. It came to the point of your choice to steal through multiple points, each with moral or ethical choices involved. - you know stealing is illegal, but you're willing to take the punishment if it comes to that. Your choice. The hypothetical dilemma is an overly simplified circumstance which excludes many decisions and leaves many assumptions unspoken, but the primary elements are clear; theft, loss and gain, care of a life. The two top issues in the hypothetical example, saving your daughter's life and stealing, leave unspoken the fact that you knowingly choose to steal and are willing to assume the risk of penalty. I hate to make reference to scripture here, but it handles the issue quite well. If a man steals because he's hungry, he'll be forgiven though he'll have to pay back what he stole plus damages. That's the legal handling. The NT opens up the wider issues of mercy, forgiveness, etc. From the law's point of view, it either is or is not stealing; in this case it is. From the compassionate point of view, something besides a standard punishment may be determined appropriate. So much for hypotheticals unless you have more. We haven't proven that an external law exists, but neither has your offering proved otherwise. From the evidence of your example, I'd suggest that perhaps you agree to the standard and object to it's application. It has been suggested that most objections to such concepts are based not in objective conclusion but fear of implication. Not unlike the Free Methodist college student's joke that they were warned against pre-marital sex because the church was afraid it would lead to dancing. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted August 24, 2007 Author Share Posted August 24, 2007 Do you seriously believe that "all men are created equal?" That was one of the inalienable rights recited by one of the founders. Actually, it wasn't. A quick review of the document shows the founder's premise; all are equal under the law and each therefore is recognized with inalienable rights. Try again? Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted August 24, 2007 Author Share Posted August 24, 2007 Oh I forgot! We are all animals. Dano, You may be right. At least my daughter's opinion supports your thesis. She thinks most men are pigs. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Do you seriously believe that "all men are created equal?" That was one of the inalienable rights recited by one of the founders. Actually, it wasn't. A quick review of the document shows the founder's premise; all are equal under the law and each therefore is recognized with inalienable rights. Try again? Buddy I don't care how you want to twist it. I don't need to look it up. I know it says "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." OR CLOSE ENOUGH. I don't agree with the founder's premise, nor does it really matter to me what someone else said 200 plus years ago or 2000 years ago. You cannot demonstrate these "rights" exist outside of the word "rights." Let's talk about present day, right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted August 24, 2007 Author Share Posted August 24, 2007 John Lennon:"Imagine there's no heaven ... You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one" Mankey, Surely we're not reduced to quoting rock and roll lyrics in support of our philosophical positioning. Lennon's dream is poetic naïveté, a fantasy nirvana that precludes occupation by human beings. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts