what happened to free speech

[Spacecadet]

Who cares about morality? An ordered society is about serving our needs in a practical way. We may not know why but it is in our nature to seek certain things like happiness, emotional comfort and mental stimulation and to avoid others like, pain, loneliness and boredom. Man is a social animal and to maximise our experience of life we cooperate with our fellows. We don't need the ten commandments to tell us that stealing or violence is wrong, nature tells us that by making us unhappy when we experience them.



You're quite right on that one. No atheist would ever be daft enough to believe in moral absolutism!

are they really wrong?
Or just wrong in certain circumstances but perfectly justified in others?
where do you draw the line, what extenuating circumstances would you consider?
Some people feel happy committing violence... does that make it not wrong in those cases?

[hyperD]

are they really wrong?
Or just wrong in certain circumstances but perfectly justified in others?
where do you draw the line, what extenuating circumstances would you consider?
Some people feel happy committing violence... does that make it not wrong in those cases?

That's a good point, at what stage does it become morally wrong to steal food from others, for instance when one seizes an easy opportunity on the welfare of others, or when one is desperate for food for one's starving child?

I have a family member that I guess I'll call a militant fundamentalist christian that is certainly no advert for the cause, but unlike d000gh who has gracefully and reasonably argued his faith, he simply believes in absolutes.

I've a good mind to print this thread out and make him read it.

Great discussion folks.

[xoggoth]

are they really wrong? etc

I would say the normal majority would be the decider on that one. Actually, I would cross out "wrong" which suggests morality, and put "not in the public interest". Whatever serves and satisfies the greater number of people. I don't think that leads to the less able being seen as disposable, we are social animals and have empathy and sympathy with those we can relate to and feel are deserving.

Of course there are questions but there are just as many with religious ideas of morality which, in practice, are flexible and easily bent to suit the rulers of the time or the public mood. Christianity is supposed to be loving thy neighbour, turning the other cheek etc but how many "just wars" has it embarked upon, how many Muslim or Jewish women and children did the Crusaders massacre? How many witches or heretics has it tortured and burnt?

[Gibbon]

TBH I find the whole idea of morality without a higher power to be as daft as you consider a religious group telling the world they know what 'the truth' is.

Now there is the main reason I have no truck with superstition, this stupid assertion that only religion can give morality.

[escapeUK]

We don't need the ten commandments to tell us that stealing or violence is wrong, nature tells us that by making us unhappy when we experience them.!

But being the one doing them leads to much happiness, doesnt it?

[d000hg]

Whether one is an athiest or not, religious teachings can be a good thing.

But only if you carefully pick out the parts which agree with the position you want to preach in the first place. You could equally well pick bits out of Harry Potter or Speaker for the Dead or Star Wars

[d000hg]

Who cares about morality? An ordered society is about serving our needs in a practical way. We may not know why but it is in our nature to seek certain things like happiness, emotional comfort and mental stimulation and to avoid others like, pain, loneliness and boredom. Man is a social animal and to maximise our experience of life we cooperate with our fellows. We don't need the ten commandments to tell us that stealing or violence is wrong, nature tells us that by making us unhappy when we experience them.

Now there is the main reason I have no truck with superstition, this stupid assertion that only religion can give morality.

You two don't seem to be in agreement. Of course we can create some kind of rules and term it morality. But it's not morality because morality is about terming things as right or wrong and those concepts are surely meaningless when we're just talking about trying to make a framework to minimise misery.

For instance why would an atheist want to believe they were "a good person"?

[d000hg]

Of course there are questions but there are just as many with religious ideas of morality which, in practice, are flexible and easily bent to suit the rulers of the time or the public mood. Christianity is supposed to be loving thy neighbour, turning the other cheek etc but how many "just wars" has it embarked upon, how many Muslim or Jewish women and children did the Crusaders massacre? How many witches or heretics has it tortured and burnt?

People are still people... in the context of Christianity it is more apt to look at the things Jesus did - since he was/is the perfect example - than the things done in his name

There's a wonderful passage in A Christmas Carol about this:

"There are some upon this earth of yours," returned the Spirit, "who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us."

[doodab]

I would also assert that an atheist cannot possibly defend the idea of moral absolutism.

It seems to me that most "moral codes" are expressions of taboos that have evolved because they benefit the social group of which an individual is a member. Many things that are considered wrong when done to your neighbor are considered honorable when done to your and your neighbors shared enemy. Simple "absolute" rules break down as social interaction becomes more complex and widespread and we're forced to deal with greay areas.

I'd hold that an absolute moral code, were it to exist, ought to take the form of universal rules that give consistent (in the sense of being non-contradictory, not always the same) answers in all frames of reference. So sometimes thieving or killing would be wrong, sometimes not, but the underlying principle that made it right or wrong would always be the same.

In practice I suspect this might mean choosing "the lesser of two evils", in which case some sort of concept of " total utility" seems like a perfectly reasonable place to start.

Personally I think such a "rational morality" ought to be a goal of philosophy.

[doodab]

For instance why would an atheist want to believe they were "a good person"?

Because although ideas of what exactly constitute right and wrong vary among individuals the concepts themselves are more or less universal. The human brain is hard wired with "moral sense" in order to feel guilt and shame and conform to social norms because it confers an evolutionary advantage.