Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

[zoegirl]

So you have essentially boiled down morality and fairness to majority rule (those to set and agree to the laws)....in which case there IS no inherent rightness or wrongness to something, simply an agreement that we won't do that.

But our ancestors lived by a different set of agreed upon social rules. Rape was accepted in early human models. Tribal warfare was accepted.

So according evolutionary morality, *their* morality is no better than ours. Which means that rape really isn't wrong, it's just the current evolutionary solution. Murder is really ok, we just think that it is....our brains wiring simply demands that most of us think that way.

[jlay]

I'm not sure what you mean. I'll try to answer. I decide what is important to me and I pursue it. Happiness, harmony, and fairness are all pretty high on the list.

What if power, greed, and conquest, were high on the list?

Fairness I guess does need to be in quotes. We can really only define fairness in reference to what we agree upon beforehand. I live in a society that has a system of laws that for the most part, is fair. I try to make my actions consistent with these laws. If somebody came along and decided his needs were above mine, I guess we'd have to appeal to the law to decide. By living in a particular society, you implicitly agree to live by the laws of the land.

That's great when you live in a place where your idea of fairness and the law agree. What if the law didn't back you up. What if you were a woman in Afghanistan? A Jew in 1940 Germany?

[humblesmurph]

So you have essentially boiled down morality and fairness to majority rule (those to set and agree to the laws)....in which case there IS no inherent rightness or wrongness to something, simply an agreement that we won't do that.

But our ancestors lived by a different set of agreed upon social rules. Rape was accepted in early human models. Tribal warfare was accepted.

So according evolutionary morality, *their* morality is no better than ours. Which means that rape really isn't wrong, it's just the current evolutionary solution. Murder is really ok, we just think that it is....our brains wiring simply demands that most of us think that way.

The only true source of objective morality would be God. However, once we decide that God is the only source of objective morality, we still have to decipher what that morality is. Now, if God has placed it in my heart, then it is there for me like it is for you, and we have no problems. If, however, I have to look at book to find this objective morality, then I still have to use my own intuition to figure it out because the bible isn't exactly clear on all things. This lack of clarity seems to be why Christian Apologists exist. They make these things clear for the masses. However, not even the the Apologists agree on everything. Experts disagree all the time, but I don't care what Hawking or Susskind has to say about black holes. Right or wrong, my life is the same regardless. Morality is different. I need to figure out what is the best way to live in this world. It seems that whatever that way is, will still require a rational choice on my part.

We both agree that what people ought to do, and what they do are too often different. Please read with an open mind. It is not just majority rule, or the will of the powerful that decides what is right or wrong. It is the proper framing of the question in one's mind. Take rape. I have to make a decision of whether rape is OK. Well that is easy. All I have to do is imagine that I don't know what I am. I don't know my gender, race, religion or place in society. All I know is that I will have to live in society. I then think of what rules are appropriate for society. Would I want to live in a society where I wouldn't be protected from rape? Of course not. It could be argued that I would think rape would be OK if I was a big strong man with a desire to rape people, but I don't know if I will be such a man.

A quicker way to explain this would be cutting a cake. If I was assigned to cut the cake for all of us, and I was told that I was going to get last pick, I would make darn sure that all the pieces were of equal size. When thinking of any moral problem, I just imagine myself getting the last piece of cake.

[humblesmurph]

I'm not sure what you mean. I'll try to answer. I decide what is important to me and I pursue it. Happiness, harmony, and fairness are all pretty high on the list.

What if power, greed, and conquest, were high on the list?

Fairness I guess does need to be in quotes. We can really only define fairness in reference to what we agree upon beforehand. I live in a society that has a system of laws that for the most part, is fair. I try to make my actions consistent with these laws. If somebody came along and decided his needs were above mine, I guess we'd have to appeal to the law to decide. By living in a particular society, you implicitly agree to live by the laws of the land.

That's great when you live in a place where your idea of fairness and the law agree. What if the law didn't back you up. What if you were a woman in Afghanistan? A Jew in 1940 Germany?

If power, greed, and conquest were high on my list I'd be a different person. However, if they were, the laws in my country would keep these in check so as not to interfere with the rights of others.

If I was I woman in Afghanistan or a Jew in 1940 Germany, I'd likely be treated rather poorly. I wouldn't agree that my treatment was moral because of the cake cutting example given in the above post.

[jlay]

A quicker way to explain this would be cutting a cake. If I was assigned to cut the cake for all of us, and I was told that I was going to get last pick, I would make darn sure that all the pieces were of equal size. When thinking of any moral problem, I just imagine myself getting the last piece of cake.

Not trying to sound snippy, but sounds like your idea of fairness is just driven by selfishness. In that what drives your motives in the end, is what you get.

If power, greed, and conquest were high on my list I'd be a different person. However, if they were, the laws in my country would keep these in check so as not to interfere with the rights of others.

Great. You live in a country that has laws that protect you. We get it. Why are these laws better than having none? Are you saying there is a inherent quality in having such laws that protect you?

The only true source of objective morality would be God. However, once we decide that God is the only source of objective morality, we still have to decipher what that morality is

What? Not sure this makes sense. Are you saying that you have to have an instruction manual to figure out lying, stealing and murder are wrong?

[humblesmurph]

A quicker way to explain this would be cutting a cake. If I was assigned to cut the cake for all of us, and I was told that I was going to get last pick, I would make darn sure that all the pieces were of equal size. When thinking of any moral problem, I just imagine myself getting the last piece of cake.

Not trying to sound snippy, but sounds like your idea of fairness is just driven by selfishness. In that what drives your motives in the end, is what you get.

If power, greed, and conquest were high on my list I'd be a different person. However, if they were, the laws in my country would keep these in check so as not to interfere with the rights of others.

Great. You live in a country that has laws that protect you. We get it. Why are these laws better than having none? Are you saying there is a inherent quality in having such laws that protect you?

The only true source of objective morality would be God. However, once we decide that God is the only source of objective morality, we still have to decipher what that morality is

What? Not sure this makes sense. Are you saying that you have to have an instruction manual to figure out lying, stealing and murder are wrong?

Selfishness? No. It's driven by the desire to be fair.

Yes, having laws is better than not having laws. Laws protect the weak from the strong. Laws gives us our base from which to have a society. Inherent quality? No, just the fact that we all agree to obey the laws.

No, I do not need an instruction manual. My point is that morality is always subjective in actual practice regardless of the existence of objective morality.

[jlay]

Selfishness? No. It's driven by the desire to be fair.

But that is not what your analogy reveals. It states that fairness is a by-product of what you are getting, last. That your own selfish desire is what motivates such fairness. That, my friend is only an illusion of fairness.
Either that, or the analogy you used is not an accurate representation of what you believe.

Regardless, why is fairness better? What about 'kill or be killed.' 'Only the strong survive.' 'Survival of the fitest.'

Yes, having laws is better than not having laws. Laws protect the weak from the strong. Laws gives us our base from which to have a society. Inherent quality? No, just the fact that we all agree to obey the laws.

But why is it, better? What scale are you using to judge the quality of one vs. the other?
I agree that laws are better, but I also know why I believe laws are better. And it isn't because, "I say so."

My point is that morality is always subjective in actual practice regardless of the existence of objective morality.

You will get no argument from me that there are subjective qualities about morality. To believe in objective morality in no way means you reject subjective morality. But, how can you say that the murder of a million Jews is wrong? When one society, within the framework of law, viewed it as acceptable. If there is no objective standard then it is nothing more than preference. Your preference is law and order. So what? Why is that better than anarchy and chaos?

[humblesmurph]

Selfishness? No. It's driven by the desire to be fair.

But that is not what your analogy reveals. It states that fairness is a by-product of what you are getting, last. That your own selfish desire is what motivates such fairness. That, my friend is only an illusion of fairness.
Either that, or the analogy you used is not an accurate representation of what you believe.

Regardless, why is fairness better? What about 'kill or be killed.' 'Only the strong survive.' 'Survival of the fitest.'

Yes, having laws is better than not having laws. Laws protect the weak from the strong. Laws gives us our base from which to have a society. Inherent quality? No, just the fact that we all agree to obey the laws.

But why is it, better? What scale are you using to judge the quality of one vs. the other?
I agree that laws are better, but I also know why I believe laws are better. And it isn't because, "I say so."

My point is that morality is always subjective in actual practice regardless of the existence of objective morality.

You will get no argument from me that there are subjective qualities about morality. To believe in objective morality in no way means you reject subjective morality. But, how can you say that the murder of a million Jews is wrong? When one society, within the framework of law, viewed it as acceptable. If there is no objective standard then it is nothing more than preference. Your preference is law and order. So what? Why is that better than anarchy and chaos?

The cake cutting exercise is not selfishness, because I'm getting the last piece of cake. I would volunteer, every single time, to get the last piece of cake in that scenario. If it were a lottery and I was to get the seventh piece of cake or the first piece, it wouldn't matter. No illusions friend, just everybody with the same sized piece of cake. Even if you could prove that it is motivated by selfishness, wouldn't it be a genetic fallacy to suggest that the end results couldn't be fair on that basis alone? If you could demonstrate how my method doesn't generally achieve my goal of having everybody get an equal piece of cake, I would thank you for the education.

We could all be nomads in the dessert, but the preponderance of the evidence (history of mankind) suggests that communities are better for mankind's survival. Simply put, we need each other. Law and order is a necessary element of communities. Kill or be killed, survival of the fittest, and only the strong survive, are not consistent with community. If you could show me a lasting community without rules, or consistent methods to resolve conflict, again, I would thank you for the education.

Laws are better to me because the continued survival of mankind is important to me. Yes, that is only my opinion. It could be the case that it is better that we all perish. What to say about how to create these rules? See my cake cutting example above. Everybody gets a fair shot. Nazi Germany fell because they ignored this principle on such a large scale that the rest of the world had to take notice.

However, I am overly verbose. You made a positive claim in your post:

jlay- I agree that laws are better, but I also know why I believe laws are better. And it isn't because, "I say so."

Why do you believe laws are better?

[jlay]

Why do you believe laws are better?

Laws establish order. I would contend that it is written on the heart of man to find order over choas. That it is inherent. Beyond mere preference. That we are able to make subjective judgments about right and wrong because there is an objective truth that we measure by.

[humblesmurph]

Why do you believe laws are better?

Laws establish order. I would contend that it is written on the heart of man to find order over choas. That it is inherent. Beyond mere preference. That we are able to make subjective judgments about right and wrong because there is an objective truth that we measure by.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. I have 2 questions:

1. How do we know of this objective truth?

2. If we are able to measure a judgment by objective truth, how can you say that judgment is subjective?

[DannyM]

Why do you believe laws are better?

Laws establish order. I would contend that it is written on the heart of man to find order over choas. That it is inherent. Beyond mere preference. That we are able to make subjective judgments about right and wrong because there is an objective truth that we measure by.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. I have 2 questions:

1. How do we know of this objective truth?

2. If we are able to measure a judgment by objective truth, how can you say that judgment is subjective?

1. Because you live by it. When you run a red light, you know it's wrong. When you jump a queue, you know it's wrong. Why do you apologise when you're late for a meeting? Because you know it's wrong to keep people waiting. This knowledge of objective truth is inherent in you.

2. Because while we know objective truth, living by it and following it is easier said than done. This is where the subjective comes in.

I have a question for you. Are you denying objective truth? And if you are, how do you explain the inherent knowledge of right and wrong?

[humblesmurph]

Why do you believe laws are better?

Laws establish order. I would contend that it is written on the heart of man to find order over choas. That it is inherent. Beyond mere preference. That we are able to make subjective judgments about right and wrong because there is an objective truth that we measure by.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. I have 2 questions:

1. How do we know of this objective truth?

2. If we are able to measure a judgment by objective truth, how can you say that judgment is subjective?

1. Because you live by it. When you run a red light, you know it's wrong. When you jump a queue, you know it's wrong. Why do you apologise when you're late for a meeting? Because you know it's wrong to keep people waiting. This knowledge of objective truth is inherent in you.

2. Because while we know objective truth, living by it and following it is easier said than done. This is where the subjective comes in.

I have a question for you. Are you denying objective truth? And if you are, how do you explain the inherent knowledge of right and wrong?

1.You didn't really answer the first question. I bet you are wrong often, I know I am. How do you know that your opinion about red lights, jumping queues, and being late is objective? I can say that I know that you are wrong. How do we prove who is correct?

2. Again, you didn't really answer the question. If I know something is wrong and I do it anyway, I haven't made a subjective judgment of morality. I've just done something wrong.

To answer your question: No, I am not denying objective truth. I know that 2+2=4. I don't have to explain inherent knowledge of right and wrong, because it isn't inherent, it's taught.

[jlay]

I don't have to explain inherent knowledge of right and wrong, because it isn't inherent, it's taught.

so, it isn't inherently wrong to kill 6 million jews because you don't like their race? it isn't inherently wrong to molest children.?
Are you saying these are just prefences of the culture that you are taught? In other words, you aren't repulsed by them in your heart, you just don't agree with them in how they fit with what society has taught you. So, it isn't really wrong to force yourself on a woman sexually. Not inherently. It is just something you were taught because society decided it was not preferred. Thus, in a culture where rape is accepted, then it is morally correct and justified? If we lived in a culture where lying is acceptable, then would lying actually be morally correct?

[smiley]

EDIT: Double post.

[humblesmurph]

I don't have to explain inherent knowledge of right and wrong, because it isn't inherent, it's taught.

so, it isn't inherently wrong to kill 6 million jews because you don't like their race? it isn't inherently wrong to molest children.?
Are you saying these are just prefences of the culture that you are taught? In other words, you aren't repulsed by them in your heart, you just don't agree with them in how they fit with what society has taught you. So, it isn't really wrong to force yourself on a woman sexually. Not inherently. It is just something you were taught because society decided it was not preferred. Thus, in a culture where rape is accepted, then it is morally correct and justified? If we lived in a culture where lying is acceptable, then would lying actually be morally correct?

jlay, I've already explained why I think that it is wrong to kill 6 million Jews. Molestation, rape and all the rest fit under that same explanation. You can either scroll up, or I'd be more than willing to explain it again. I never, ever, suggested that because a culture says something is acceptable, that it is acceptable.