99Percent

Hello Gurdur,

I said chooses to think. Of course many atheists seem to never make the choice. Anyone who follows dogma, such as the examples you mention obviously are not choosing to think.

The basic theistic premise is that morals are dictated by God, and you must follow them. No interpretation is required. Thats what I meant. Of course there are those theists who would want to make their own interpretations but they are being dishonest against their basic principles. Then the theist's problem is compounded by the fact that theirs scriptures are full of contradictions. Its a problem because the theist is not free to think.

My original "inacurracy" was meant to be slightly criptic in order to invite the reader to think a bit. Very different from what you claim is sermonizing, no?

Substitute "morality" in Seraphins statement to any other concept, like trees, cars, tables, nations, etc.

"Nope, there cannot be a universal concept of morality." Therefore morality doesn't exist.
"Nope, there cannot be a universal concept of cars." Therefore cars don't exist.
"Nope, there cannot be a universal concept of trees" Therefore trees don't exist.
"Nope, there cannot be a universal concept of nations." Therefore nations don't exist.
"Nope, there cannot be a universal concept of x". Therefore X don't exist.

Gurdur

Which is one reason why your statement that atheists are free to think and theists not is simplistic and wrong.

And there's the second reason. Yet again, you repeat yourself, without evidence against the evidence I gave you.
I've already pointed out to you that theists in practice spend half their time on interpretation and debate; you simply ignore that and repeat an empty slogan.

Rubbish. Ascertaining just what is the will of God is, I have been told, half the fun of theism.

This is so far your only correct statement.

And here we are again.
Repetition instead of a logical argument using the facts. Not good. Tsk.

I've thought.
It's spelled "cryptic", not "criptic".

Since you've repeated your false claims without backing them up, no.
Allow me to explain slowly.

Seraphim said there is no universal concept of morality.
This is not the same thing as saying there is no morality.
Do you get the difference ?

Seraphim is correct; morality is different from individual to individual - or do you wish to claim all individuals - or even most - share the same morality ?



[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Gurdur

No, you're not fighting a lost cause - but you'll have to be content with basic trends, rather than very concrete rules.

Human morality rests upon a basis of evolutionary psychology. In practice, if power relations are as equalized as possible, i.e. no-one can significantly exploit anyone else, then you often see (depending on history of the group) a kind of broad consensus as to morality emerging.

While individuals do differ, and love to pretend they differ even more than they actually do, there's still more similarities than differences.

Carlos

I find it somewhat disconcerting to think of it that way. A "gut feeling" suggests something we have little control over or cannot otherwise explain. Maybe even something that is a bit random. That said - while I'd like to think that pondering a question will lead me to knowing right and wrong, sometimes that gut feeling is all I have.

Morality is not random, though. There are "patterns" to our feelings. It's no coincidence that my gut has never told me to kill someone. It tends to be consistent.

The best I've come up with is that there are "guidelines" which I try to follow, such as no killing, no stealing, no lying. I call them guidelines and not rules because I acknowledge the possibility that the right choice might be to break them.

So where do they come from? Are these guidelines emergent from my gut feelings? Or are they the result of thinking and reasoning, and it is my feelings that are the product? I can't really say.

99Percent

Gurdur:
I said chooses to think. Of course many atheists seem to never make the choice. Anyone who follows dogma, such as the examples you mentioned obviously are not choosing to think.

And no, I am not being childish. YOU are not reading what I wrote. So as long as you keep on rebuking me, implying I wrote something I did not write I am going to keep on repeating what I did write.

And you yet again, repeat yourself replying without evidence yourself. This is not a question of "evidence" but of understanding my point. The point is, is that theists choose to not think by limiting their options with their dogma, coming from scriptures or their priests. They can pretend whatever they want that they are interpreting what they should do in given circumstances, but in the basic premise is that these morals are dictated by an absolute right and wrong.

Not according to theists, so I have been told. The will of God is very serious matter, for them. Remember, this is not santa, but a very serious core belief.

Maybe if you actually try to explain where the difference resides instead of just dictating the fact, I might get it.

Now you are injecting new words to Seraphim. We are not talking about morality per se, but of the concept of morality. Of course, individuals have different meanings on what good or bad is, this is different from claiming that people have the ability to choose, and what the concept of morality would be, IMO.

Interesting. Care to elaborate?

I wonder how you arrived at this conclusion and the previous statement. I do not think their logical deduction are very different from that of my arguments for objective morality...

excreationist

I think morality means what a person believes is "right" or "wrong". This can be confused with what we call a "moral person" - a person who has principles that are in society's interests.
People who function well in society (i.e. are not in jail, etc) would often do so because their principles involve valuing other people - we would consider them to be normal - and "moral".
Those who are more anti-social kinds of morality - i.e. egoistic? or ego-centric type morality.

I think a good framework about the different moralities is <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/2200/Kohlberg.htm" target="_blank">Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development</a>.
Though people normally talk about morality like Kantianism?, Egoism, Utilitarianism, etc... but I think Kohlberg's theory includes all of them (it just doesn't use that different terminology).

An interesting feature of the theory is that it says that there people need to go through the lower stages to get to the higher ones... note that the higher stages aren't necessary superior - sometimes it may be better to be a bit selfish than be like Gandhi.

idiom

Who says its obvious that killing someone else is wrong?

I believe right and wrong are tied to what you value. It becomes objective to a degree when you pin it to something or someone other than yourself and let them dictate your values.

For example the theist ties morality to God. God values society but not human life. Therefore murder is wrong but killing can be right. Therefore war and even genocide are not moral wrongs.

A universal morality is impossible unless everybody decided to pin morality to some value somewhere and those who didnt like it could just be happy being immoral.

The atheist stands accused of being amoral not because removing God removes objective rules, but because removing a creator means the universe is a big accident. The argument goes then that nothing can have any value therefore you cannot build a morality.

There is a tendency to borrow values though. Someone stated that killing was obviously wrong. It is wrong to anyone who values life in and of itself.

Stephen T-B

Idion: “The atheist stands accused of being amoral not because removing God removes objective rules, but because removing a creator means the universe is a big accident. The argument goes then that nothing can have any value therefore you cannot build a morality.”

I found that a useful explanation, Idiom, but I hope the argument can be refuted.
Can we take it to pieces and see what we actually have in front of us?

The universe is the intended creation of a god whose purpose was to make a home for Man whose destiny is to live with him for ever in heaven, or to “die” and go to hell. Am I right so far?
We live if we obey god’s laws; we die if we don’t. Furthermore, god’s laws provide us with our morality, so in order to fulfil god’s purpose for us (and the whole of creation, since we are the purpose of creation), we are obliged to be moral.
That some of these laws relate to the ordering of a disciplined society in which people may live with one another in security is, I take it, a happy coincidence?

If it isn’t, if the creation of a well-ordered, disciplined society is one of god’s aims, then we are entitled to say we don’t need a god-given morality to achieve it because it is one of ours as well, and the morality we devise with that end in mind is as valid as any morality handed down to us by a god.
Morality is only meaningful when it has an objective, and if that objective is the creation of a safe, stable society for humans to live it, then being moral has nothing to do with believing in god.

AnthonyAdams45

Accepting the Webster's of definition of moral as "being in accord with standards of right or good conduct", by inference a morality is the standard by which conduct is judged.

When Bentham proposed that an action was good when it produced more happiness than misery for all concerned, and that and action was evil when it produced more misery than happiness for all concerned, he was proposing a standard that could be applied at all times by all persons. Such a standard is universal, as it does not have exceptions nor loopholes. That not every one accepts his standard does not make it any less universal, logically speaking, just that it is not universally accepted, a completely different issue.

Thus it seems a universal morality is possible.

DRFseven

I've isolated a question from one of your posts in order to address a specific point. Because we are members of a species whose culture constantly changes, our behavioral codes are useless if they are static. We need a system whereby morals evolve to fit what is needed in a particular circumstance; something that is plastic enough to roll with the punches. And we have evolved just such a system. We are born equipped to acquire moral beliefs from our social group, our parents in particular. As we mature, we modify those beliefs in accordance with our experience. This ensures that during periods of stability, we keep using rules that work, but, at the same time, we have to flexibility to adapt to change when necessary. An example is the long-held belief that it's good to have a lot of children. As we all know, in most situations now, this is no longer so good. Without the abililty to reformat our moral codes, we could not accomodate this development to our best interests. In areas where objective moral codes make birth control impossible or undesireable, the results are disastrous and those populations change only when they literally have no choice.

So, yes, a universal morality is undesireable and would spell death for humanity.