Philosoft

This looks for all the world like an MF&P thread. I must have been sleeping...

Off you go...

7thangel

You got a very find observation, and sweep had a very good elaboration. But please allow me to point it unto a theistic point of view, and I wish that sweep may give his consideration on his analysis.

Humans can only be given the attributes of morality because it is the only one which really is involved in making decisions with regards to reaching goals and purpose. Animals do not have the intellect and therefore are not subject to the laws of morality. Humans are the ones morally responsible of the world, because they are the one’s who can change their environment. Animals just hunt for everyday food, and irresponsible in maintaining their daily supplies of food. Secondly, animals hunting other animals for food demonstrates itself that nature’s dictate is not really basis for morality. I guess this will point us that morality is subject to Humans alone, and that morality is tied to man’s ability to maintain existence, and the peace.

Now, we are for sure, cannot maintain our life and peace eternally because of uncontrollable forces of nature. Here comes God in the picture, we put responsibility to God on the things that we are incapable to do. On the level where there is no God, we find discontent of the goals of maintaining existence because of mortality, which itself is relative to our peace. So, I guess, without God in the picture, the morality that we built is not satisfying.

Now, I do not get a sense when atheists say existence doesn’t make sense, except of dissatisfaction because of man’s mortality. Such dissatisfaction picture loss of self peace, which is one of the foundation of morality. The point, I guess, is that atheists are achieving to have peace in morality which they ignorantly loss without God.

So sweep and starboy, what do you think of these?

Starboy

7thangel, I guess it depend on what constitutes making a decision. To me it is the act of making a choice, to decide to attack or run, to hunt on the mountain or in the valley. There is no question that animals make these decisions all the time. They do not make them using logic or reason such as humans claim to use but they make them all the same. I suspect that the mechanism of animal decision-making is not unlike what is often referred to as “spiritual”. A form of thinking that does not rely on reason or knowledge. The animal just “knows” what the “right” thing to do is.

If the animal lived a solitary existence then there would be no need for any type of social code of behavior. For those animals that live in groups there does exist such a code. In the context of the animals it does constitute morals. I say this because in many species of animals the code causes individual animals to behave in a way that does not benefit it directly but does result in a net benefit for the group as a whole. This is what I mean when as speak of morals as a sort of connective tissue for the collective group. There would be no point in animals grouping together unless it conferred additional benefits to survival. One would expect that over time behaviors would evolve and develop that would further improve the chances of survival of the group. This would constitute the evolution of morals.

Humans are animals; if humans have morals then animals have morals. To make a claim that humans alone have morals is to ignore the fact that a great deal of what motivates us is no different than any other social animal – status, food, shelter, getting the best mate, protecting your family and so on.

7thangel, I consider myself a scientist. I use the study of the natural (science) to understand my surroundings, which includes morals. As such I do not accept supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. If you wish me to take you seriously do not try to invoke god to explain what can be explained without resorting to god.

I do not appreciate your construction of a straw man argument. Perhaps other atheists claim that existence doesn’t make sense, but as a scientist I make no such claim. It is because I cannot. To make such a claim would be to imply that all of nature was understood. If it was understood there would be no need for science. Because we do not understand all of existence the exploration of reality continues unabated. Until that day comes when science succeeds in exploring every nook and cranny of existence all I can do is speculate. For me though I am not much interesting in speculating, contemplating what has been discovered is much more interesting and gives me great pleasure and peace.

“When men are calling one another names and making faces
and all the worlds a jangle and ajar.
I contemplate on interstellar spaces
And gaze upon a star.”

Mark Twain (with my own modification of the last line.)

Starboy

Starboy

Hi 7thangel,

This is a fascinating point of view. It would appear that for most of the history of the world no one was responsible for it. Only in the last hundred years due to the advances of knowledge provided by science (not religion) have humans become numerous enough and powerful enough to make a dent in the world. It begs the question, who was responsible for the other 4.5 billion years? And exactly when were we put in charge? How can we be held responsible for a planet for which we possess only the simplest understanding? As a species we can hardly take care of ourselves, it seem presumptuous to claim responsibility for the planet. Given that the earth is not isolated from the rest of the universe, a universe that is full of hazards that could easily destroy the earth, how can we be held responsible when there is no conceivable way that we could ever control these external forces? 7thangel, your hubris is magnificent.

Starboy

sweep

when attributing responsibility one of the main questions asked is, did the person intend harm. Were they in a fit state of mind to judge right from wrong, according to a standard of morality. Normally this standard is the foundation on which peace is kept in a society, and a system of punishment is incorporated to prevent a continual cycle of vendetta or retribution. Thus anarchy is prevented.

The fact is, the future isn't a fixed entity, but we do have a vague idea of consequence: (You hit me, I hit you back) hence we have all kinds of legal ambiguities in cases where someone was killed unintentionally, and the perpetrator does time.

Unfortunately there is such a thing as naturally bad people: 'a snake just is. A snake bites' (see natural born killers for details):

"The romantic notion that all malefactors are depraved on accounta they're deprived has worn thin among experts and laypeople alike. Many psychopaths had difficult lives, of course, but that does not mean that having a difficult life turns one into a psychopath. There is an old joke about two social workers discussing a problematic child: 'Johnny came from a broken home.' 'Yes. Johnny could break any home.'

"The comedian Richard Pryor described his experience at the Arizona State Penitentiary during the filming of Stir CrazY:

'It made my heart ache, you know, to see all these beautiful black men in the joint. Goddam; the warriors should be out there helping the Masses. I felt that way, I was real naive. Six weeks I was up there and I talked to the brothers. I talked to 'em, and... [Looks around, frightened]... Thank God we got penitentiaries! I asked one, "Why did you kill everybody in the house?" He says, "They was home.".. I met one dude, Kidnap - murdered four times. And I thought, four times, that was your last, right? I says, "What happened?" [answers in falsetto] "I can't get this shit right! But I'm getting paroled in two years."

So if I use the analogy of a freeway, with all the traffic going in one direction, except for one jerk, who is going the opposite way, we realise that 'natures dictate', as you put it, has inherent elements of unpredictability, that we, as a species, have to deal with.

I do agree with this statement, especially if a conflict is ongoing, but isn't this conflict part of an innocent/guilt complex. I have already laid down my position on the foundations of morality, and they adhere to the 'social contract' model, which is defined in terms of costs and benefits. We can't afford to live together if people fight all the time.

If I read you right, then you believe that life has an ultimate goal, or a higher purpose laid down by 'god'. without god, there can be no ultimate moral foundation; thereby good and bad boils down to 'what you like', not what god likes.

This is not a subject I can really exchange much with you, nor would it help. Although I think this is a core issue for you, as it is for many. Suffice to say that nature works; human nature works. If you're looking for the real evil in this world, perhaps you would fare better by looking into ideology (or ingroup/outgroup psychology) which strives to preserve a belief as sacred. what I am suggesting is that ideas are personal, and if someone else doesn't like those ideas they don't like you. How is that for a sense of morality?

As far as mortality is concerned- this is your last freedom, a final gift, so that no-one may lock you up forever. I ask you to contemplate my analogy of mortality's opposite:

"An immortal being is like a crisp bag in a bush: It doesn't go away"

kctan

Starboy,

In a way we humans are actually responsible to the earth which we lived in now. For the last 4.5 bil years, nature nearly dictates everything until the emergence of homo sapiens.

We are so busy actively changing nature that we've nearly forgotten until consequences start catching up on us. Pollution, ozone layer thining & depletion, climatic changes before it's time et al are direct results of our handy work before we fully understand the working of nature & what we shouldn't overdo.

Some lessons have been learned & remedies taken like re-aforestation, controlling the emittion of pollutants, wild live protection, natural reserves et al.

As knowledge of natural phenomenon & how they happen/works are studied & made known, it becomes possible for humans to actually stop them but the question here is if we stop them what'll be the consequences ? Remember not only consequences that may affect humans but the consequences it could cause to the entire planet as a whole.

These shows that yes we are indeed responsible for the earth not only for our own sake but for our future as well as the future of the other things that inhibit this planet called earth. Like it or not, we are actually responsible now. It's just a matter of how we intend to go about it.

Starboy

kctan, there is no doubt that humanity has a stake in the outcome of the future natural history of the earth. It can also be argued that humanity has reached the point where we are beginning to have a profound impact on that future natural history. But do not mistake this interest with responsibility. If being a caretaker of the planet was our role and responsibilty, then the correct response would be to eliminate most of our population. However IMO our responsibility is not to the planet it is to our species, as such our goal is to control our environment for our own benifit and not to preseve some natural state of the planet. At least as I see it that is how things are currently being run and I don't see people getting together anytime soon to reduce the human population.

Starboy

kctan

Starboy,

We need to take up that responsibility.

It's not by nature our role at all. It's for the sake of our species as well that we take up such a role. No doubt the current situation is such that things seems to be going another way but the truth is we are already starting to take charge by all those environmental laws & such which are used not only to preserve nature but to study & restore it at the same time.

I don't see eliminating most of our population as neccessary to protect nature from being destroyed by humans. There are more & better ways then this to do it. Population control measures is just one of the 'tool'.

Starboy

kctan, it all depends by what you mean when you say that humanity should take responsibility for the planet. The existence of one extremely successful species in an ecosystem will affect all other species. There is no way around that as long as we live on the earth. If we are responsible to ourselves and not the planet then we will not care if species become extinct and the current ecosystems are destroyed as long as we replace them with a sustainable ecosystem that can support us indefinitely. Such an ecosystem will bear little to no resemblance to what we understand as a natural earth. If our responsibility is to maintain what we understand to be a natural earth then the only way for us to succeed is to radically reduce our impact on the eco systems of the world. That means a much smaller number of humans on the planet then there are now. There is little you can do, humans have to have a place to live, they must eat, dispose of their waste and they must play. With the population expected to exceed 12 billion in the next 50 years, no matter how efficiently we provide for ourselves we will have a huge impact on the environment.

Starboy

7thangel

Thanks sweep, your point is taken.


Though I am a theist and you an atheist, I guess we will not come unto an "unbearable" conflict with what you said. But mentioning innocent guilt complex, I guess it speak with our rationality in general. For if we know we are acting morally there is nothing to feel such.


My point actually about morality is that we put the burden of morality unto our capability to make decision. My belief in God, however, is that our being is predetermined by God. So actually, it does follow from my belief of God, that God is dictating morality on us through giving us the capacity to make the right decisions. Thus, all things boil down to God's predeterminatiion.


As I stated on the last paragraph of my original post. If two set of beliefs could exists without creating conflict or harm against each other, there is really no problem. Or if one can bear each other.


But I submit that your idea is actually dangerous for an uneducated person to adhere. You, being educated, I might find it bearable.