Morals without god/the bible

[Byblos]

You are correct, I can't say it is inherently wrong. I can only say that I think that it is wrong and hope enough people think the same way. My argument would be the misery and suffering that it causes, not that God may not approve and judge you for it or you'll lose some points on the OM scale.

I don't think telling my daughter that genocide is inherently wrong is really going to be much use to her. Talking to her about what genocide is, instances of it in the past and the misery and suffering that it causes I feel is a much better approach. Enough information for her to, hopefully, form her own opinion that it is wrong. I feel there is ample evidence to convince most reasonable people that genocide is wrong without resorting to the divine. The problem is that some people, regardless if they believe in OM or SM, become unreasonable and end up committing acts of genocide.

I was under the impression the genocide was not really inherently wrong, for instance if God tomorrow commanded a people to commit genocide as another group of people were inherently wicked, genocide might actually be the right thing to do.

If I were a civil rights attorney I would without a doubt defend in a court of law another person's absolute right to burn the flag of the United States as an expression of free speech EVEN THOUGH I CATEGORICALLY ABHOR THE IDEA. I asked this question before and never got an answer from anyone so please give it a shot. If you were a civil rights attorney, would you stand up in a world court and defend the Nazis' absolute right to commit genocide as an expression of their moral code EVEN THOUGH YOU VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE WITH IT? If the answer is yes, then that's what you need to be teaching your daughter. If the answer is no, then I'm sorry to say you are a hypocrite sir.

[touchingcloth]

If I were a civil rights attorney I would without a doubt defend in a court of law another person's absolute right to burn the flag of the United States as an expression of free speech EVEN THOUGH I CATEGORICALLY ABHOR THE IDEA. I asked this question before and never got an answer from anyone so please give it a shot. If you were a civil rights attorney, would you stand up in a world court and defend the Nazis' absolute right to commit genocide as an expression of their moral code EVEN THOUGH YOU VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE WITH IT? If the answer is yes, then that's what you need to be teaching your daughter. If the answer is no, then I'm sorry to say you are a hypocrite sir.

Byblos - I think you've framed this slightly incorrectly; it isn't about standing up for rights in the face of what you personally dislike. The loyalty many Americans have to their flag is hard-earned - it was gained not through fear by stamping out any dissent of the American nation (as in the case of China), but by standing for liberty, democracy and all manner of good things. It is vitally more important that someone be allowed to burn the flag, than it is to go against everything that flag stands for and to outlaw burnings.

We understand, then, that flag burnings are more desirable than totalitarian leadership. We understand also the right of the Jews, the Gypsies, every stripe of non-Aryan peoples to live free from fear or persecution is vitally more important than allowing another group to exercise their moral code. It is possible to defend the right of flag burners on the one hand and deny Nazis the right to commit atrocities on the other (even though you disagree with both) because you accept free expression as being more important than some rights, but much less important than others.

[Byblos]

If I were a civil rights attorney I would without a doubt defend in a court of law another person's absolute right to burn the flag of the United States as an expression of free speech EVEN THOUGH I CATEGORICALLY ABHOR THE IDEA. I asked this question before and never got an answer from anyone so please give it a shot. If you were a civil rights attorney, would you stand up in a world court and defend the Nazis' absolute right to commit genocide as an expression of their moral code EVEN THOUGH YOU VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE WITH IT? If the answer is yes, then that's what you need to be teaching your daughter. If the answer is no, then I'm sorry to say you are a hypocrite sir.

Byblos - I think you've framed this slightly incorrectly; it isn't about standing up for rights in the face of what you personally dislike. The loyalty many Americans have to their flag is hard-earned - it was gained not through fear by stamping out any dissent of the American nation (as in the case of China), but by standing for liberty, democracy and all manner of good things. It is vitally more important that someone be allowed to burn the flag, than it is to go against everything that flag stands for and to outlaw burnings.

We understand, then, that flag burnings are more desirable than totalitarian leadership. We understand also the right of the Jews, the Gypsies, every stripe of non-Aryan peoples to live free from fear or persecution is vitally more important than allowing another group to exercise their moral code. It is possible to defend the right of flag burners on the one hand and deny Nazis the right to commit atrocities on the other (even though you disagree with both) because you accept free expression as being more important than some rights, but much less important than others.

It really has nothing to do with flag burning per se. It was a simple case of analogy of defending someone else's right to do something that you yourself would not do or strongly disagree with. The question still stands, Proinsias already said he cannot state unequivocally that genocide is inherently wrong but he would teach his daughter the effects of genocide and hope she will eventually agree with him that it is wrong. Putting aside the fact that, to be consistent, he should be teaching her it's wrong only from his moral perspective and not that of the Nazis', what I am asking is rather simple: would he (or you if you agree with his premise) stand up in court and defend the Nazis' right to commit genocide even though you disagree with it? After all, if it's not inherently wrong then it MUST be defended as a RIGHT, albeit from another culture's moral perspective.

[touchingcloth]

It really has nothing to do with flag burning per se. It was a simple case of analogy of defending someone else's right to do something that you yourself would not do or strongly disagree with. The question still stands, Proinsias already said he cannot state unequivocally that genocide is inherently wrong but he would teach his daughter the effects of genocide and hope she will eventually agree with him that it is wrong. Putting aside the fact that, to be consistent, he should be teaching her it's wrong only from his moral perspective and not that of the Nazis', what I am asking is rather simple: would he (or you if you agree with his premise) stand up in court and defend the Nazis' right to commit genocide even though you disagree with it? After all, if it's not inherently wrong then it MUST be defended as a RIGHT, albeit from another culture's moral perspective.

I know it has nothing to do with flag burning specifically - my point was that neither argument (flags or Nazis) is a case of 'something you disagree with' on the one hand and 'someone's rights' on the other. I disagree with flag burnings, totalitarian governments and genocide to varying degrees. So it's more a case of 2 lots of 'rights' in each argument...your 'right' to not witness flag burnings vs someone else's 'right' to burn a flag, and the Nazis' 'right' to commit genocide vs the 'right' of non-Aryan groups to not be persecuted.

EDIT - So in answer to your question no I would not defend the Nazi's right to commit genocide, not in court nor anywhere else. But I would defend someone's right to burn a flag. The waters would get more muddy if you asked me whether I'd defend someone's right to burn a book.

[Byblos]

I know it has nothing to do with flag burning specifically - my point was that neither argument (flags or Nazis) is a case of 'something you disagree with' on the one hand and 'someone's rights' on the other. I disagree with flag burnings, totalitarian governments and genocide to varying degrees. So it's more a case of 2 lots of 'rights' in each argument...your 'right' to not witness flag burnings vs someone else's 'right' to burn a flag, and the Nazis' 'right' to commit genocide vs the 'right' of non-Aryan groups to not be persecuted.

Right (I think).

EDIT - So in answer to your question no I would not defend the Nazi's right to commit genocide, not in court nor anywhere else. But I would defend someone's right to burn a flag. The waters would get more muddy if you asked me whether I'd defend someone's right to burn a book.

This is contradicting what you said above but in any case the question is why not? Why would you not defend the Nazis' genocidal acts as their absolute right if only from their moral perspective? If genocide is not inherently wrong then it must be right from someone's perspective and must be accepted as a legitimate choice. Anything short of that is quite honestly very disingenuous.

[touchingcloth]

This is contradicting what you said above but in any case the question is why not?

Which bit does it contradict?

Why would you not defend the Nazis' genocidal acts as their absolute right if only from their moral perspective? If genocide is not inherently wrong then it must be right from someone's perspective and must be accepted as a legitimate choice. Anything short of that is quite honestly very disingenuous.

Because I think the only absolute 'right' I think you could assign to the Nazis in that case is the right to not live with non-Aryans, and even that's highly debatable. Assuming that they did have the 'absolute right' to commit genocide then I still wouldn't defend them because there is another and more important right, that of the non-Aryan groups to life. If I lived in Germany during the 20s and 30s, during the depression after WWI, and the question was framed "Do we have the right to stop the Jews and the Gypsies taking our jobs, damaging our economy, etc. etc." then you can bet that my response could well be different due to having a different morality base and being in more pressing circumstances.

[Byblos]

Why would you not defend the Nazis' genocidal acts as their absolute right if only from their moral perspective? If genocide is not inherently wrong then it must be right from someone's perspective and must be accepted as a legitimate choice. Anything short of that is quite honestly very disingenuous.

Because I think the only absolute 'right' I think you could assign to the Nazis in that case is the right to not live with non-Aryans, and even that's highly debatable. Assuming that they did have the 'absolute right' to commit genocide then I still wouldn't defend them because there is another and more important right, that of the non-Aryan groups to life. If I lived in Germany during the 20s and 30s, during the depression after WWI, and the question was framed "Do we have the right to stop the Jews and the Gypsies taking our jobs, damaging our economy, etc. etc." then you can bet that my response could well be different due to having a different morality base and being in more pressing circumstances.

But I didn't ask you to appoint yourself 'absolute right' giver (unless you're acknowledging such a position exists), nor even to compare and contrast different peoples' absolute right (if such an animal even exists). Irrespective of what your personal feelings are wrt non-Aryans or even their legitimate absolute right as they see them, as a champion of no inherent wrong or evil, it is your duty to defend acts that are seemingly morally objectionable as nothing more than personal opinions, dictated by local moral codes. I truly fail to see why you object to that.

[touchingcloth]

I didn't originally frame it as 'absolute rights' until you asked me "why would you not defend the Nazi's absolute right...".
And as for it being morally objectionable with respect to local (both in geography and time) then yes; I happen to object to certain things because of where and when I exist. I can see why certain acts that I view as immoral or moral could be viewed differently by different people. This doesn't apply to, say, genocide as I have such visceral feelings towards it. At the extremes of the spectrum I have quite clear ideas of what I view as wrong (say, genocide) and right (say, happiness) and I dare say a lot of those things will be shared by almost everyone on earth. It's in the middle ground where defining morality becomes a bit less clear.

[Byblos]

I didn't originally frame it as 'absolute rights' until you asked me "why would you not defend the Nazi's absolute right...".
And as for it being morally objectionable with respect to local (both in geography and time) then yes; I happen to object to certain things because of where and when I exist. I can see why certain acts that I view as immoral or moral could be viewed differently by different people. This doesn't apply to, say, genocide as I have such visceral feelings towards it. At the extremes of the spectrum I have quite clear ideas of what I view as wrong (say, genocide) and right (say, happiness) and I dare say a lot of those things will be shared by almost everyone on earth. It's in the middle ground where defining morality becomes a bit less clear.

I think you've answered my question as well as I can expect. Thank you.

[Proinsias]

Sounds like you haven't even convinced yourself that it is wrong. Based on what you wrote, "because I don't like to suffer myself," your whole view of 'wrong' is only that it might cause you to suffer. In other words, self-centeredness. So that really distorts the whole concept of wrong.

I said I don't like to suffer and that I can relate to other living things. So based on my own experience and the way I relate to other living things I would seek to minimize suffering in the world. I suppose it self centered in the way that I tend to put my own suffering and the suffering of those I closely relate to above that of other living things. For instance I'll rank my own daughter's suffering over the suffering of a dog on another continent I've never met.

My concept of wrong may well be a little distorted but that to me is part of being human. We do our best but we all have our own priorities and opinions. Our concepts of wrong have been shaped by different factors.

B.W

We can agree that there is existence. You are free to divide that up, classify it and count it however you wish.

The laws of gravity are human creations, hence they change with time. We now know that Newton's laws of gravity can be broken for instance. The number of planets in existence is a human creation, hence it changes as we change what we think constitutes a planet. If we promote something to planet status or demote something from planet status that something does not change, all that changes is the numbers in your list of objective facts about planets. It's kind of tough to have an objective number of planets or an objective thing called gravity when what it means to be a planet or what gravity means is changing.

It's not a matter of things not existing without humans. It's a matter of realizing you are not discovering objective truth by defining what it means to be a planet and then counting things which fall into that definition. You are simplifying things for convenience.

OM holds one accountable to a higher standard because higher standards do exist. That standard would be God himself. Another principle of OM is choice. Without choice, what is absolutely just: denying discovery or allowing exploration leading to discovery?

We may have a certain amount of freedom, at least it appears that we could have chosen to do something else if we wanted.
The existence of objective morality and God utilizing it to hold us accountable is more of a wait and see than a definite for me. Again saying that objective standards do exist and that they come from God doesn't do much to convince me.

What has been granted to you? Do you exist?

Having dabbled a little in Daoism and Zen I would have to say I can't really answer either with certainty. It would appear that I, what ever that means, exists. What I happen to have and whether that has been granted to me is another tricky question.

As with gravity and planets defining what the self is far more interesting to me than arguing if they objectively exist or not.

Byblos:

I don't follow why, in the absence of inherent wrongness, I'm somehow obliged to defend the inherent rights of people to do whatever they want.

There is no such thing as inherent rights. They are as non-existent as absolute right and wrong. I'm not obliged to defend anyone. I defend those I think are right and condemn those I think are wrong.

In the absence of inherent or absolute qualities it's not my duty to do anything.

[Gman]

I thought I'd take a crack at this post.... We don't rely on our own morals for two basic reasons..

1. Man's heart is desperately wicked.

2. No one fully understands their own heart.

I love this verse...

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

If so, then why fully trust in ourselves?

[Proinsias]

I don't see why man's heart is desperately wicked, sure the odd person turns up but on the whole desperately wicked seems little more than a pessimistic point of view.

From point two it would seem to follow that one shouldn't trust in God unless one fully understands God.

[Gman]

I don't see why man's heart is desperately wicked, sure the odd person turns up but on the whole desperately wicked seems little more than a pessimistic point of view.

Proinsias... I'm glad you asked. Let's just be honest with ourselves. Do we really think we've got it all together? I mean seriously... No one has ever sinned before in their lives? I'm just saying to you, we have to be mature and honest with ourselves. Be men.. And to be a full man or woman, we have to fess up to who we are. And to be honest, are we really so good? I don't know about you, but I have witnessed great evil in my heart. Let's just be truthful for once..

It's not that we have a good image of ourselves, but rather an accurate image of ourselves (the good and bad). Not that we beat up on ourselves. We are all sinners (walk without love) sometimes in our lives.

From point two it would seem to follow that one shouldn't trust in God unless one fully understands God.

And we can understand God. That God died for us, John 3:16. That God is love, 1 John 4:8. Now we may not understand all the things of God, but to do that, we would have to understand love in its purest form...

[Byblos]

Byblos:

I don't follow why, in the absence of inherent wrongness, I'm somehow obliged to defend the inherent rights of people to do whatever they want.

There is no such thing as inherent rights. They are as non-existent as absolute right and wrong. I'm not obliged to defend anyone. I defend those I think are right and condemn those I think are wrong.

In the absence of inherent or absolute qualities it's not my duty to do anything.

But great injustices have been perpetrated upon the Nazis for merely exercising their evolutionary-given right to free speech expressed in the form of genocide. You, as a civil rights attorney, have been appointed to defend those rights. You disagree vehemently with them, that is granted, since they go against your system of morality. But that is irrelevant; it is still your duty to defend their actions as being perfectly in line with the Nazis' system of morality and, as such, cannot be judged as evil in any way. After all, inherent right ad wrong do not exist and yet the Nazis are being persecuted for what they did. Thousands have been prosecuted, executed or jailed since WWII. How can you stand there and not champion their cause? The Nazis are counting on you to defend them; why won't you help them?

[jlay]

Gman brings up a very good point. Pro, then jumps right in to the most common fallacy among non-beleivers. That they are good. In fact the bible predicts this exact reponse in the proverbs.

"All a man's ways seem innocent to him, but motives are weighed by the LORD. (Pro. 16:2)
"Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness: but a faithful man who can find?" (Pro, 20:6)

Have mercy on me. I can think back to my childhood and some of the depraved things I thought and did. Even in my adult life, I have experienced envy, greed, hate, malice. Now I can put on a pretty good front. Most people would label me a 'nice' guy. But if I really examine my whole life for every detail, and every word, thought and deed, YIKES!! The atheist is thankful for Hitler, because they think that goodness is graded on a curve.

You are right gman. No one wants to man up and examine life this way. And yet here is this great contradiction. The atheist wants to be good. They want to be thought of as moral. And they can be, as we have established. But you can't attach any value to it, unless you pick pocket from objective morality. The non-beleiver always ends up backed into a corner, where they will finally say, it has no meaning. They will disobey their own conscience to cling to their worldview. They want meaning. They just don't want to deal with the implications. The bible predicts as well.

From point two it would seem to follow that one shouldn't trust in God unless one fully understands God.

i don't think Gmans response here applies this way. One doesn't fully understand what they are capable of. In other words, if there were a mirror into our soul, we wouldn't want to look into it for fear of what we might see.

The whole not wanting suffering thing is a real paradox for the non-believer if they are honest.
Pro wants there to be 'real' meaning attached to his position that suffering is wrong. He wants this to support that he is a 'good' person. That one is 'good' to prevent suffering, and that one is wrong to inflict suffering. You can detect the friction that he doesn't embrace the notion that suffering is wrong in only that it is rooted in selfishness. So we are essentially back to meaning. Is there any inherent truth in not wanting others to suffer? Is that a 'good' thing. If not, then Pros sincerity is only an illusion based on the fact that we can suffer and not like it. Why is it good or bad. Because Pro says so. And we are still left with the reality that this position has no more inherent value than the position that supports suffering is a necessary consequence to advance in one's own life. If we are trying to establish that there is actual quality in this moral postion, then we are again dabbling in the pockets of objective morality. The non-beleiver wants his position to have real meaning, but is unwilling to conceed completely to the realities. This is why we see this same sequence repeated. The non-believer contends their moral position. The moral position is then exposed under the light of subjective morality. The non-beleiver then retreats their contention.