Hobbs

Why do you think I haven't? I've read it, and much more.

Where have I said that one should do this?

Vorkosigan

All that I have done is answer Haran logically and without all the philosophical fluff that says that a person should compromise his own well being for the sake of others. Come-on guys, get real.

Poor Goody. To have spent all that time reading The Descent of Man and not have even a single lesson filter back from it.

Here's some concepts you should probably explore:

• kin selection
• reciprocal altruism
• evolutionary psychology
• sociobiology
• mutualism
• sharing and cooperation
• task specialization
• iterated/sequential Prisoner's Dilemma

It might be a good idea if you stopped caricaturing the relationship between evolution and morality. Even better, you could start by showing why we should regard descriptions of the natural world -- such as your very wrong one -- as normative for our behavior.

BTW, has anyone on this thread argued that Haran should compromise his "self-interest" -- a term nowhere defined in this discussion -- for the sake of others? The only person who weighed in on the wife-cheating example was MadMordigan, who told him to go for it, if the wife doesn't mind.

Michael

Hans

Hobbs

You have pointed out an obvious contradiction in my post. Something can not both be the product of something and arbitrary at the same time.

What I attempted to show was that even someone who has raped, tortured, and murdered a school bus full of children can not be shown to have done something wrong. We may dislike the behavior and wish to protect our children from this behavior. We may even be able to show that this behavior is most unproductive for a functioning society but it most definitely can not be shown to be wrong. Because wrong is always in the context of an arbitrary system.

On the other hand (and this is where you caught my contradiction), We can apply our ideals based on experience to incorperate a non arbitrary moral set through a system of written or verbal laws.

The distinction I feel is extremely important though. Without the distinction we are left incapable of questioning any moral set we may find imposed upon us.

jlowder

I agree it would be worthwhile. I don't know when I will have the time to read it, but I completely agree that it is worthwhile reading.

I agree that evolution provides a naturalistic explanation for the moral sense. But this doesn't deny any of the points I've made in previous posts.

Until you demonstrate that you've read even a representative sample of moral philosophy, then the rest of us are justified in dismissing your attacks on moral philosophy as "hogwash."

Jonathan Glover refutes your simplistic caricature of moral philosophy. Glover is an atheist and a moral philosopher. He has written the excellent book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300087152/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century</a>.

This is also incorrect.

You have provided an answer to Haran. You have not shown that your answer is correct. The relationship between morality and self-interest is a complicated one, but no one has yet given any argument to show why theism has an advantage over atheism in this sense.

By the way, for anyone who is interested in an honest and sober discussion of amoralism, John Tilley has written an excellent paper. Click <a href="http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TEth/TEthTill.htm" target="_blank">here.</a>

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

goody2shoes

Time to press on to other things for me. I can only conclude by saying that the issue of "morality" is not one of whether one should follow a particular set of guidelines - but rather whether or not there are any guidelines at all.

I only point out Darwin because that is the logical place to start. If you guys and gals don't understand that, then it is a waste of my time (and others) to continue this discussion. Then, when you read the philosophers, you have an intelligent basis to discuss real people.

As for the rest of the philosophy touted on this site - and the hogwash to try to negate the fact atheism is intrinsically and totally absent of any position with respect to morals: I've had an overabundance of that sort of double talk. A nice piece of work on this subject is in "Dreams of a Final Theory" by Steven Weinberg. (Nobel Laureate & Atheist). Note the chapters on "Against Philosophy" and "What about God".

Have a good time with your further discussion.

Peace Haran.

Goody

Vorkosigan

Well, since its hogwash it ought to be simple for you to show how it is hogwash that atheism has no moral fallout.

Like most shallow thinkers on this topic, you are completely confused about evolution, morality, and atheism. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. Like many who have not pondered this topic deeply, you seem to think it is coterminus with metaphysical naturalism.

The moral fallout of being atheist includes Buddhists, Confucians, metaphysical naturalists, pantheists, some wiccans, some ESPers, and so forth. Some atheists are subjectivists, others objectivists. Nothing unites this vast array of beliefs. What is intrinsically identical about all these beliefs? If atheism has intrinsic moral properties, how is it atheists all have different moral beliefs?

I only point out Darwin because that is the logical place to start.

ROTFL. Tell it to my atheist buddhist wife, Haran, or believers in the Cosmic Consciousness who deny evolution. Darwin and atheism have nothing to do with each other.

I'd challenge you to a debate, but it'd be like shooting fish in a barrel. You are ignorant and a coward, Haran. A moral coward.

Run away, little man. See ya around.

Michael

jlowder

BTW, it is worth noting that metaphysical naturalism also does not entail any particular ethical theory. Like atheism, the only ethical implication that follows from metaphysical naturalism is that the Divine Command Theory is false.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

goody2shoes

Wake up Michael. If you are going to insult someone at least pay attention to who posted the quote. I only debate intellectual equals ---- who at least know to whom they are writing. You obviously don't qualify. I hope that Haran has the same restrictions.

Now lets see, shall I call you a nasty name also? Nah! It will just get the moderator mad again.

Bye and say "hi" to all your Buddhists, Confucians, metaphysical naturalists, pantheists, wiccans, ESPers, subjectivists, and objectivist friends. (Did that exhaust your vocabulary?)


Goody

jlowder

I have no problem focusing on the topic, "Are there any moral guidelines at all?" The problem is that you still have not presented any argument for the conclusion, "There are no moral guidelines at all if atheism is true."

Darwinism is relevant because it helps to understand human nature and the conditions that promote human flourishing. However, describing human flourishing, and being obligated to promote human flourishing are two very different things. If we do have a moral obligation to promote human flourishing, it is not because evolution is true.

If you feel something is hogwash, then it should be easy for you to give arguments against it. If anything is "hogwash," it is your repeated failure to provide so much as an argument for your position.

You have finally said something of philosophical significance I (almost completely) agree with: "atheism is intrinsically and totally absent of any position with respect to morals." Since "lacking a position with respect to morals" is NOT the same as "holding the position that all moral theories are false," I almost completely agree with you. The reason your statement is not exactly correct is that atheism DOES entail the falsity of the Divine Command Theory of ethics.

I think I speak for many on this board when I say that I've had an overabundance of assertions without arguments.

If you feel that Weinberg has provided a good defense of your position on morality, why don't you summarize his argument on this board?

Jeffery Jay Lowder

goody2shoes

Jeffery,

You are obviously one of the more intelligent people on this list. However, you ask of me what you do not do yourself and also you do what you ask me not to do.

By this, I mean that:

you want me to present arguments for what is a negative thing. You ask me to show arguments for why morality should not exist --- but why is that any different than asking someone to show that God does not exist? Just as atheism is the natural fallout when one sees no reason for God, then amorality is the logical fallout for one who has no external need of such a thing. So we both suggest to each other that we read some book or other. I don't have the time and clearly you do not also.

So until someone states a reason for having any sort of morals beyond the natural self-presentation, I think that Haran's question is answered as I have stated. So far the details of the answers posted are lacking any strong logic. At best, I hear nothing that would convince anyone that "morals" are anything other than an emotion in the mind of the beholder. For people who criticize following an organized creed on the bases of logic, that is awfully feeble and it certainly means that no morality at all is quite reasonable.

I find that I cannot respond to your posts easily because you are able to split the quotes and then respond. Somehow, that doesn't work when I try it. I just get the final line -- as in this post.

Goody