Atheistic morality

[notyou2]

My friend robbed the guy. When the guy was walking away he said "you should of shot me ". So my friend shot and killed him. Who was in the wrong?

You call him a friend????????

What the hell is wrong with you?

AND, you don't know who was in the wrong?????

Man, you're fucked up.

[BigBallinStalin]

moral principles derived from reason/logic

Such as? Defining 'good' and 'bad' relies on just as much nonsensical circular logic as adherence to a holy book.

As OP says, atheistic morality is built on air.

We shouldn't kill each other for shitty reasons. Here's a shitty reason: "I want your shoes, and I'll shoot you if you don't give them to me."

Seems pretty clear and much less nonsensical than "god said so, cuz it's true, cuz there's this book and in it it says that god's words are true and these are god's word."

One man's shitty reason is another man's good reason. A starving man probably doesn't consider his hunger to be a shitty reason for stealing food or stealing money to buy food with. Maybe to you his hunger is a shitty reason to steal, but just because you consider his actions petty, distasteful or disproportionate doesn't make them 'immoral'. What you're doing there is confusing 'things I don't like' with 'things that are immoral'.

There are many pragmatic reasons for arguing in favor of laws that prohibit murder, theft, selling poisonous beef and so on, and those reasons are much more academically sound than 'because it's wrong'.

Do you sincerely believe that a starving person is morally justified in killing your best friend so that he can steal his shoes to sell them?

If I don't believe that something can be declared 'immoral' due to my belief that morality is an unsound concept then I obviously don't believe anything can be 'morally justified' either. If someone shoots my friend in order to steal his shoes then that is neither a moral nor immoral act.

Suppose someone approaches you and says, "I'm going to mutilate your body and dump in the Thames." The threat is credible.

I step into the scene and instead of saving you, I ask, "is what he's about to do you okay?"

If you'd resist, you're conveying something about your beliefs on morality. ("He shouldn't mutilate me!"). Your actions are going to betray your (in)sincere position on morality.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS, of course I can't look at a skeleton and say, that guy's dead, because I'm not a coroner. I lack the authority to do so. Plea on, cowboy.

You have failed to address any of the points I've made.

Correct...
I need to know your answers because I'm not sure how best to talk to you about all this. I'd love to deal with your concerns, but if you don't want to cooperate (and would rather shout on your podium of god-given 'knowledge'), then count me out.

[shickingbrits]

Fluoride + free markets = social well-being

Feel free to address it.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, how much do you know about economics and the economy?
Do my really strong opinions which I refuse to address myself count as knowledge of economics? if so, I possess an unlimited amount of knowledge on economics and the economy.

I mean, if you're gonna criticize something, then you should be pretty good at knowing what you're criticizing, right?
No because undersatnding the economy is as simple as knowing how to tell if a human is dead or alive. You just look at it and you know.

If you feel that you're lacking the knowledge to do so, would you then educate yourself to fill in the gaps?
Educate myself? Huh?

Or would you insist that somehow you are still correct?
Yes, I am correct.

Based on your answers as indicated by your behavior, I must conclude that there's no hope for you. Please make your time.

[shickingbrits]

Based on your refusal to answer the question, diversion, pleas to authority, strawmen, etc, I would say you don't really care about the validity of your position. It justifies wealth, BBS wants to be wealthy, BBS gives it his stamp of approval.

[AndyDufresne]

Based on your refusal to answer the question, diversion, pleas to authority, strawmen, etc, I would say you don't really care about the validity of your position. It justifies wealth, BBS wants to be wealthy, BBS gives it his stamp of approval.

--Andy

[mrswdk]

We shouldn't kill each other for shitty reasons. Here's a shitty reason: "I want your shoes, and I'll shoot you if you don't give them to me."

Seems pretty clear and much less nonsensical than "god said so, cuz it's true, cuz there's this book and in it it says that god's words are true and these are god's word."

One man's shitty reason is another man's good reason. A starving man probably doesn't consider his hunger to be a shitty reason for stealing food or stealing money to buy food with. Maybe to you his hunger is a shitty reason to steal, but just because you consider his actions petty, distasteful or disproportionate doesn't make them 'immoral'. What you're doing there is confusing 'things I don't like' with 'things that are immoral'.

There are many pragmatic reasons for arguing in favor of laws that prohibit murder, theft, selling poisonous beef and so on, and those reasons are much more academically sound than 'because it's wrong'.

Do you sincerely believe that a starving person is morally justified in killing your best friend so that he can steal his shoes to sell them?

If I don't believe that something can be declared 'immoral' due to my belief that morality is an unsound concept then I obviously don't believe anything can be 'morally justified' either. If someone shoots my friend in order to steal his shoes then that is neither a moral nor immoral act.

Suppose someone approaches you and says, "I'm going to mutilate your body and dump in the Thames." The threat is credible.

I step into the scene and instead of saving you, I ask, "is what he's about to do you okay?"

If you'd resist, you're conveying something about your beliefs on morality. ("He shouldn't mutilate me!"). Your actions are going to betray your (in)sincere position on morality.

So if I try to stop someone mutilating me, then my actions show that I believe said person's mutilation of me would be immoral? Does that not just show that I don't want to be mutilated?

A child is in his bedroom, playing loud music from his speakers. His mom comes in and says 'turn that down'. Does her opposition to his playing of loud music show that she thinks his playing loud music is immoral? According to your logic, it does.

[mrswdk]

My friend robbed the guy. When the guy was walking away he said "you should of shot me ". So my friend shot and killed him. Who was in the wrong?

You call him a friend????????

What the hell is wrong with you?

AND, you don't know who was in the wrong?????

Man, you're fucked up.

Bit harsh.

[GoranZ]

Atheist morality is far better then Religious one... Large part of the wars(including civil wars) that are active now are based on religious reasons. In the history the stats stay the same.

If all humans were atheists everyone would lose one element of difference which is equal to one big reason less to fight among each other.

[BigBallinStalin]

We shouldn't kill each other for shitty reasons. Here's a shitty reason: "I want your shoes, and I'll shoot you if you don't give them to me."

Seems pretty clear and much less nonsensical than "god said so, cuz it's true, cuz there's this book and in it it says that god's words are true and these are god's word."

One man's shitty reason is another man's good reason. A starving man probably doesn't consider his hunger to be a shitty reason for stealing food or stealing money to buy food with. Maybe to you his hunger is a shitty reason to steal, but just because you consider his actions petty, distasteful or disproportionate doesn't make them 'immoral'. What you're doing there is confusing 'things I don't like' with 'things that are immoral'.

There are many pragmatic reasons for arguing in favor of laws that prohibit murder, theft, selling poisonous beef and so on, and those reasons are much more academically sound than 'because it's wrong'.

Do you sincerely believe that a starving person is morally justified in killing your best friend so that he can steal his shoes to sell them?

If I don't believe that something can be declared 'immoral' due to my belief that morality is an unsound concept then I obviously don't believe anything can be 'morally justified' either. If someone shoots my friend in order to steal his shoes then that is neither a moral nor immoral act.

Suppose someone approaches you and says, "I'm going to mutilate your body and dump in the Thames." The threat is credible.

I step into the scene and instead of saving you, I ask, "is what he's about to do you okay?"

If you'd resist, you're conveying something about your beliefs on morality. ("He shouldn't mutilate me!"). Your actions are going to betray your (in)sincere position on morality.

So if I try to stop someone mutilating me, then my actions show that I believe said person's mutilation of me would be immoral? Does that not just show that I don't want to be mutilated?

A child is in his bedroom, playing loud music from his speakers. His mom comes in and says 'turn that down'. Does her opposition to his playing of loud music show that she thinks his playing loud music is immoral? According to your logic, it does.

"Immoral" as in one "shouldn't do something," sure. "Shouldn't" involves the normative, which is about value judgments. That's the realm of moral philosophy... it's pretty inescapable. Your actions even conveyed your belief in private property rights of your own body, and such rights underpin the moral foundation for many moral philosophies.

The mom is being harmed by the negative externality of the kid's music. It's distracting her or whatever. She believes that such an act is wrong and goes to get the kid to stop. That's a simple open-and-shut case in morality. Your preferences--like not being mutilated--do reveal your normative stance; you are making moral statements with your actions.

[mrswdk]

I never said he 'shouldn't' mutilate me. Just that I don't want him to and thus will try to stop him.

[BigBallinStalin]

I never said he 'shouldn't' mutilate me. Just that I don't want him to and thus will try to stop him.

Well, like I said, your actions convey your normative stance on the issue, so you're still making a statement about morality--even if you don't explicitly say something. You subjectivists really need to be honest with yourselves. inb4 AoG rage.

[Gweeedo]

Not only my behaviour. What if everyone thought as I do, and made the opposite choice as me? What if a segment of the population did?

Suggesting that life be based on atheist principles gives free reign to societies and individuals to do as they please and failure would show that you are not up to standards and suggests you suicide rather than face social consequences.

You are condemning me for thinking this way and making the active choice not to precede with it, while simultaneously suggesting that it is the way people should proceed.

This is where you go badly wrong,there are no atheist principles,it is not a worldview or even a philosophy,it is nothing more than a lack of belief in the existence of god(S).Nothing else is implied by it.Nada.Period.The end.

I believe you are mistaken, Denial seems to be a distinctive ruling opinion for all atheist...oppose to agnostics.
It is much more than a lack of belief, for all atheist...it is a distinctive ruling opinion...that which you have adamantly expressed every time you hear the word God.

Circumstances change, with that, A players Morals might change also.
Who do you think would be most likely to abandon their ''Morals'' when confronted with a calamity?
The Godless (infidels) are powerless when death is on the line...abandon all moral judgment if it means survival...anything is permissible if it leads to your survival.

The Bible produces a good moral code for those who don't know any better and for those who might run against the law.

[mrswdk]

I never said he 'shouldn't' mutilate me. Just that I don't want him to and thus will try to stop him.

Well, like I said, your actions convey your normative stance on the issue, so you're still making a statement about morality--even if you don't explicitly say something. You subjectivists really need to be honest with yourselves. inb4 AoG rage.

This is an enormous difference between wanting a certain state of affairs to exist and believing that state of affairs should exist, and you seem to have confused the two.

In defending myself from attack I am not making a normative statement of any kind. All that stuff you said about me believing that I should have private property rights over my own body was you projecting your normative values onto my actions. I believe nothing of the sort. I simply don't wish to have a stranger stick a knife into my stomach.

[AAFitz]

Do you sincerely believe that a starving person is engaging in a voluntary exchange?

We have done nothing to increase competition. That company who develops the automated system and decreases their costs by 70% will drop the price by 10% until their competitors either create their own system, which will reinforce the the original price, or drop out of competition which will then cause the price to increase.

De Beers hoards their diamonds and if a competitor comes along, they have the most interest in swooping it up.

Sure, decreasing a doctors wages by 95% will decrease the number of doctors if their social status is dependent on their income, becoming a doctor is costly and if there are other nations paying higher wages that can take in a lot of doctors.

Again, Tesla was not looking for profit for providing energy, and Morgan had already financed it. Morgan was operating on a worldview. I don't do shit unless the reward is greater than my input. He didn't see elevating the world as a reward. He saw elevating himself as a reward. He didn't see raising the level of equality as a fit end, he saw raising inequality as a fit ends.

As for making a car that last 20 years, the great depression was caused by making products too good in a system that didn't reward durability.

You are living in a fairytale.

Wow. So, how much do you know about economics and the economy?

I mean, if you're gonna criticize something, then you should be pretty good at knowing what you're criticizing, right?

If you feel that you're lacking the knowledge to do so, would you then educate yourself to fill in the gaps? Or would you insist that somehow you are still correct?

I need to know your answers because I'm not sure how best to talk to you about all this.

If you cant dodge a wrench...

[AAFitz]

Not only my behaviour. What if everyone thought as I do, and made the opposite choice as me? What if a segment of the population did?

Suggesting that life be based on atheist principles gives free reign to societies and individuals to do as they please and failure would show that you are not up to standards and suggests you suicide rather than face social consequences.

You are condemning me for thinking this way and making the active choice not to precede with it, while simultaneously suggesting that it is the way people should proceed.

This is where you go badly wrong,there are no atheist principles,it is not a worldview or even a philosophy,it is nothing more than a lack of belief in the existence of god(S).Nothing else is implied by it.Nada.Period.The end.

I believe you are mistaken, Denial seems to be a distinctive ruling opinion for all atheist...oppose to agnostics.
It is much more than a lack of belief, for all atheist...it is a distinctive ruling opinion...that which you have adamantly expressed every time you hear the word God.

Circumstances change, with that, A players Morals might change also.
Who do you think would be most likely to abandon their ''Morals'' when confronted with a calamity?
The Godless (infidels) are powerless when death is on the line...abandon all moral judgment if it means survival...anything is permissible if it leads to your survival.

The Bible produces a good moral code for those who don't know any better and for those who might run against the law.

Or a good moral code to quote and do great evil.

[AAFitz]

My friend robbed the guy. When the guy was walking away he said "you should of shot me ". So my friend shot and killed him. Who was in the wrong?

You call him a friend????????

What the hell is wrong with you?

AND, you don't know who was in the wrong?????

Man, you're fucked up.

Bit harsh.

Not really. The guy was a moron as evidenced by saying "you should of shot me", instead of "you should have shot me." So really, he had it coming.

[AAFitz]

I never said he 'shouldn't' mutilate me. Just that I don't want him to and thus will try to stop him.

Well, like I said, your actions convey your normative stance on the issue, so you're still making a statement about morality--even if you don't explicitly say something. You subjectivists really need to be honest with yourselves. inb4 AoG rage.

This is an enormous difference between wanting a certain state of affairs to exist and believing that state of affairs should exist, and you seem to have confused the two.

In defending myself from attack I am not making a normative statement of any kind. All that stuff you said about me believing that I should have private property rights over my own body was you projecting your normative values onto my actions. I believe nothing of the sort. I simply don't wish to have a stranger stick a knife into my stomach.

Along with the knee cap the stomach is one of the most painful places to be stabbed, but it also takes a long time to die from it, so honestly, since you were going to be stabbed anyways, its probably best it was in the stomach....

And I actually do agree that one could argue you might not have any implicit right not to be stabbed in the stomach, but in that case, you've created a universe where there are no morals whatsoever...and maybe you are right, but unlike with people believing in God if he doesn't exist, people en masse believing in morals, actually does make them exist. Morals can be created, a creator either is or isn't.

[warmonger1981]

Let me clarify... He was a friend, now he been in prison for about 12 years. I USED to hang with shifty shit heads. My personal opinion it was wrong. Just asking hypothetical question. Devil advocate if you will.

[mrswdk]

And I actually do agree that one could argue you might not have any implicit right not to be stabbed in the stomach, but in that case, you've created a universe where there are no morals whatsoever...and maybe you are right, but unlike with people believing in God if he doesn't exist, people en masse believing in morals, actually does make them exist. Morals can be created, a creator either is or isn't.

The only problem with that is that there would still be no logical basis for proclaiming that an action is moral/good or immoral/bad. You might say it's immoral to kill under any circumstances ever, while I might say it's morally acceptable to kill if a greater number of lives will be saved as a result. So we disagree, and now what? There is no objective foundation for our claims, and as such neither of us can justify our respective stances if challenged. Neither of us can logically claim to know what is or isn't 'moral'.

I agree that there are things which can be created just by people having the idea in their heads (e.g. social norms of behavior) but a moral cannot be created in this way. We can create the concept of a moral, but we can't actually create a moral.

[BigBallinStalin]

And I actually do agree that one could argue you might not have any implicit right not to be stabbed in the stomach, but in that case, you've created a universe where there are no morals whatsoever...and maybe you are right, but unlike with people believing in God if he doesn't exist, people en masse believing in morals, actually does make them exist. Morals can be created, a creator either is or isn't.

The only problem with that is that there would still be no logical basis for proclaiming that an action is moral/good or immoral/bad. You might say it's immoral to kill under any circumstances ever, while I might say it's morally acceptable to kill if a greater number of lives will be saved as a result. So now we disagree, and then what? There is no objective foundation for our claims, and as such we cannot justify our respective stances if challenged. Neither of us can logically claim to know what is or isn't 'moral'.

I agree that things such as social norms can be and are created just by people having the idea in their heads, but for a moral to be logically sound it cannot vary from person to person. The nature of moral codes, however, is that they do vary from person to person. We can create the concept of a moral, but we can't actually create a moral.

I've been trying to understand your position, so bear with me.

When there's a disagreement, each side presents more reasons. There may be some gray area, for example, where utilitarians and natural rights libertarians would disagree, but there's also some common area (e.g. they both value human life), so.. why do you throw up your hands and say, "there is no objective foundation for our claims"? What's your standard of 'objective'? (How can others meet it?)

E.g. if we took your stance very seriously, then there would be no 'objective' justification for condemning genocide or (involuntary) slavery. How is that possible? What's your argument that fleshes out this conclusion?

[BigBallinStalin]

Do you sincerely believe that a starving person is engaging in a voluntary exchange?

We have done nothing to increase competition. That company who develops the automated system and decreases their costs by 70% will drop the price by 10% until their competitors either create their own system, which will reinforce the the original price, or drop out of competition which will then cause the price to increase.

De Beers hoards their diamonds and if a competitor comes along, they have the most interest in swooping it up.

Sure, decreasing a doctors wages by 95% will decrease the number of doctors if their social status is dependent on their income, becoming a doctor is costly and if there are other nations paying higher wages that can take in a lot of doctors.

Again, Tesla was not looking for profit for providing energy, and Morgan had already financed it. Morgan was operating on a worldview. I don't do shit unless the reward is greater than my input. He didn't see elevating the world as a reward. He saw elevating himself as a reward. He didn't see raising the level of equality as a fit end, he saw raising inequality as a fit ends.

As for making a car that last 20 years, the great depression was caused by making products too good in a system that didn't reward durability.

You are living in a fairytale.

Wow. So, how much do you know about economics and the economy?

I mean, if you're gonna criticize something, then you should be pretty good at knowing what you're criticizing, right?

If you feel that you're lacking the knowledge to do so, would you then educate yourself to fill in the gaps? Or would you insist that somehow you are still correct?

I need to know your answers because I'm not sure how best to talk to you about all this.

If you cant dodge a wrench...

In conversation, is it a good idea to treat a 5-year-old like a 45-year-old professor of philosophy? Or does it make more sense to adjust your style so that you can maximize your chances of being understood?

[BigBallinStalin]

I never said he 'shouldn't' mutilate me. Just that I don't want him to and thus will try to stop him.

Well, like I said, your actions convey your normative stance on the issue, so you're still making a statement about morality--even if you don't explicitly say something. You subjectivists really need to be honest with yourselves. inb4 AoG rage.

This is an enormous difference between wanting a certain state of affairs to exist and believing that state of affairs should exist, and you seem to have confused the two.

In defending myself from attack I am not making a normative statement of any kind. All that stuff you said about me believing that I should have private property rights over my own body was you projecting your normative values onto my actions. I believe nothing of the sort. I simply don't wish to have a stranger stick a knife into my stomach.

Ut-tut-tut! I wasn't confusing the two; I was only trying to get away with it! I'm gonna argue that actions convey moral claims, but let's put that on hold for now.

[mrswdk]

And I actually do agree that one could argue you might not have any implicit right not to be stabbed in the stomach, but in that case, you've created a universe where there are no morals whatsoever...and maybe you are right, but unlike with people believing in God if he doesn't exist, people en masse believing in morals, actually does make them exist. Morals can be created, a creator either is or isn't.

The only problem with that is that there would still be no logical basis for proclaiming that an action is moral/good or immoral/bad. You might say it's immoral to kill under any circumstances ever, while I might say it's morally acceptable to kill if a greater number of lives will be saved as a result. So now we disagree, and then what? There is no objective foundation for our claims, and as such we cannot justify our respective stances if challenged. Neither of us can logically claim to know what is or isn't 'moral'.

I agree that things such as social norms can be and are created just by people having the idea in their heads, but for a moral to be logically sound it cannot vary from person to person. The nature of moral codes, however, is that they do vary from person to person. We can create the concept of a moral, but we can't actually create a moral.

I've been trying to understand your position, so bear with me.

When there's a disagreement, each side presents more reasons. There may be some gray area, for example, where utilitarians and natural rights libertarians would disagree, but there's also some common area (e.g. they both value human life), so.. why do you throw up your hands and say, "there is no objective foundation for our claims"? What's your standard of 'objective'? (How can others meet it?)

E.g. if we took your stance very seriously, then there would be no 'objective' justification for condemning genocide or (involuntary) slavery. How is that possible? What's your argument that fleshes out this conclusion?

When I talk about objectivity, I mean that there is no factual or logical basis for describing something as 'moral' or 'immoral'. If I say that I am a sexy Chinese girl then it is possible for me to show you some evidence which demonstrates that what I say is true. If I say 'the Holocaust was a morally good thing' then there is nothing I can reference to prove myself correct (and likewise, you would not be able to prove that I am wrong). Neither of us can demonstrate any kind of truth or objective reality at the heart of any claims we might make about morality.

So yeah, genocide and slavery can't be described as 'moral' or 'immoral' either. There is a practical reason for not allowing people to go around exterminating entire ethnic groups as they please (most people would like to live in a safe and comfortable environment, and so collectively prohibiting total carnage and anarchy makes sense) but not a moral one.