Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DarkDruid · 04-14-2002, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by vixstile:
Stopping someone from doing something, has nothing to do with my post.

I must've jumped to the conclusion here. My apologies. Now... cutting and pasting from your first post...

Quote:

What rational reason would this person have to, not commit these immoral acts?

Well... since you've eliminated outside consequences as a factor in this hypothetical, the only thing to stop them from doing it is... themselves, I suppose.

There are many people whom I hate, and a few of those whom I wouldn't mind dead and gone. However, I'm not about to go about murdering them... if not out of natural consequences then out of the simple fact that I was not raised to kill people. I'm not certain I would want someone else's blood on my hands or to live with the fact that I just snuffed out a unique peice of life that will never be conscous again.

Of course, if one is a sociopath then one has no such constraints. Assuming that this person is not a sociopath and is only imagining these things and thinking "what if...?" then they might have sufficient reason to stop themselves.

vixstile · 04-14-2002, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkDruid:


Well... since you've eliminated outside consequences as a factor in this hypothetical, the only thing to stop them from doing it is... themselves, I suppose.

There are many people whom I hate, and a few of those whom I wouldn't mind dead and gone. However, I'm not about to go about murdering them... if not out of natural consequences then out of the simple fact that I was not raised to kill people. I'm not certain I would want someone else's blood on my hands or to live with the fact that I just snuffed out a unique peice of life that will never be conscous again.

Of course, if one is a sociopath then one has no such constraints. Assuming that this person is not a sociopath and is only imagining these things and thinking "what if...?" then they might have sufficient reason to stop themselves.

That is the exact point of my post

The existence of an objective morality would give no objective reason to behave accordingly.
Human behavior is ultamitly chosen on a subjective basses

DarkDruid · 04-15-2002, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by vixstile:
That is the exact point of my post

The existence of an objective morality would give no objective reason to behave accordingly.
Human behavior is ultamitly chosen on a subjective basses

Ah! Good to see we're in agreement, then.

dk · 04-19-2002, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by vixstile:
Now lets say this individual is in a situation where they know they can easily get away with committing many of these immoral acts without suffering any negative consequences
(jail, persecution,guilt).

Now my question is:
What rational reason would this person have to, not commit these immoral acts?

Why should an individual not commit an act, purely on the basis that the act has been defined as objectively immoral?

Why should an individual adhere to a particular behavior, purely on the basis that it has been defined as objectively moral?

Without a god or society to enforce an objective moral law, what objective value does that law have?

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: vixstile ]

Morality regulates the behavior of a free people. Because a person is free they may elect to murder (hypothetically). A murderer may deprive a wife of her husband and children of their Father, etc.. It is simply impossible to calculate the loss to loved ones on any reasonable grounds. Whether or not the murderer is caught, tried, convicted and punished reflects upon justice. Justice succeeds when it deters murderous impulses, and give solace and closure to victims. When crimes go unpunished by unjust laws (or are protected under law) people are free to wantonly lie, murder, steal, etc... for whatever reason they deem efficient. Murder is an ilicit exercise of liberty; while justifiable homocide is a licit exercise of liberty. When human law contradicts moral law then people live lawlessly.

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]

simian · 04-19-2002, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by vixstile:


Im sure they aren't all that different from yours, or anyone else's. HAPPINESS

As for incentive to behave morally:

If I behave in a way that is socially unacceptable, i may be punished .

If I behave in a way that is socially acceptable, I may be praised

I mite derive pleasure from acting morally.

Acting immoral mite cause emotional negatives

I may simply choose to act morally because that is what i want .

You might want to look a little more closely at why you do the socially acceptable/avoid the unacceptable. Do you really do it to be praised or to avoid punishment?

My own view: I do things because I can and do have empathy for others. I stop for cars having mechanical trouble along the road (I have been there myself), I donate blood, I do quite a number of things. Not because I am seeking praise or trying to avoid punishment, but because these are things I feel are necessary to have a functioning society. Which is not to say there are not other reasons for doing it (perhaps I will have friends or relatives that will need blood, have a broken down car, etc), but for me: I have to be the sort of citizen I want to have around me.

DRFseven · 04-19-2002, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by vixstile:
Now lets say this individual is in a situation where they know they can easily get away with committing many of these immoral acts without suffering any negative consequences
(jail, persecution,guilt).

Now my question is:
What rational reason would this person have to, not commit these immoral acts?

Since we are driven by emotion to implement moral opinions, there would be no motivating reason not to commit supposedly objective immoral acts because we wouldn't feel any motivation. Since the feeling takes root according to whatever moral code we happened to learn in whatever way we happened to learn it, it is, of course, subjective.

free12thinker · 04-19-2002, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by vixstile:
The point i'm trying to get at is that;whether or not there is an objective morality, human morality is ultimately subjective. We ultimately base our morality on what we want,what our goals are, and how various acts affect us in positive/negative ways

A secular objective morality would be worthless. All it would do is define what is moral and immoral, but not give any incentive to behave morally.

I agree with you to an extent. There are subjective moralities such as sexuality, gambling, body shots (tatooes, piercings, manners of dress), but there are also moralities that are not subjective. These are universal immoralities that are agreed upon by the general public. These are acts such as murder, rape, theft, molestation etc...

How do we come up with these universal immoralities? ANSWER: Humanity. Action and reaction. Pain and Suffering. Hinderance. Flesh and Blood. Live and learn.

Hypothetical start of universal immorality:
First tribe on earth. Man in tribe strikes another man because he can't control that anger and rage that everyone has. That man he hit responds in pain, and responds in anger. Others see pain. Others see anger. Emotions are automatically tugged (as they are today when we see tragedy (murder, rape, etc...). Hitting is now wrong. Extend the rest of the universal immoralities from this hypothetical or similiar ones. In order to live, we need to get along, or there will be no reproduction, there will be no civilizations which are essential for people to be able to eat (someone has to grow or kill the food), live (someone has to be the doctor) and other life needs. We realized this. We realized that for humanity to grow, we could not act harshly towards others. We could not impede their progress.

So in short, we don't need a God when we have instincts and emotions. We have rage and strength but we have emotion and sympathy. We want it all, but we want to live and continue society more. We want things easy, but we'd really get things honestly.

Of course there are deviants to this theory. People who (as you said in your hypothetical) see no immorality in murder. People who kill with no remorse. People who steal on a constant basis. We have rapists, pedophiles and the like. These people have chemical imbalances that sever (partly or fully) their ability to feel sympathy or to control rage. They aren't severed from God. It's behavior beyond the norm.

dk · 04-20-2002, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by simian:

You might want to look a little more closely at why you do the socially acceptable/avoid the unacceptable. Do you really do it to be praised or to avoid punishment?

My own view: I do things because I can and do have empathy for others. I stop for cars having mechanical trouble along the road (I have been there myself), I donate blood, I do quite a number of things. Not because I am seeking praise or trying to avoid punishment, but because these are things I feel are necessary to have a functioning society. Which is not to say there are not other reasons for doing it (perhaps I will have friends or relatives that will need blood, have a broken down car, etc), but for me: I have to be the sort of citizen I want to have around me.

I think you're confusing morality with virtue. What distinguishes a moral person, from a virtuous person?

DRFseven · 04-20-2002, 06:04 AM

Quote:

dk: You might want to look a little more closely at why you do the socially acceptable/avoid the unacceptable. Do you really do it to be praised or to avoid punishment?

My own view: I do things because I can and do have empathy for others. I stop for cars having mechanical trouble along the road (I have been there myself), I donate blood, I do quite a number of things. Not because I am seeking praise or trying to avoid punishment, but because these are things I feel are necessary to have a functioning society. Which is not to say there are not other reasons for doing it (perhaps I will have friends or relatives that will need blood, have a broken down car, etc), but for me: I have to be the sort of citizen I want to have around me.

And what do you think furnished that feeling you have of reward at doing "right"? All your experience, beginning with your parents/caretakers, within your society. You weren't born with your attitudes, you know; you learned to have them.

dk · 04-20-2002, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DRFseven:
And what do you think furnished that feeling you have of reward at doing "right"? All your experience, beginning with your parents/caretakers, within your society. You weren't born with your attitudes, you know; you learned to have them.

If I am the sole product of my parents (nature and nurture), society and experiences then �free will� and freedom are an illusion that reflects forces (inputs/outputs and biological hardware) beyond my control or will. I don't buy it. Objective knowledge commands my acceptance but subjective knowledge requires my assent. While it may be true a person can be forced to commit immoral acts, this only makes them a victim of circumstances, but their free will and creativity remain inalienable. To some degree a person with free will and creativity acts as their own agent hence has some culpability. If I am to accept your hypothesis then I am a slave to my nature, status and environment. This is nonsense, and demonstrates why creatures of reason like you and me are �an ends unto themselves� (free agents), hence subject to objective moral principles. In a sense morality is the price of free agency, hence morality is only contingent upon reason. Now an immoral person becomes a slave to their station, emotions, passions, appetites and ambitions precisely because they enslave reason to the their will.

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.