Talon

Well, if it was a Mr.Goodbar.... maybe.

To clarify, I don't base my actions on "morality", right or wrong. I base them on how they benefit me. If I knew I could rob a bank and never be caught, it would not bother me at all to do so.

Do you think I should feel guilty if I were to download MP3's? It's still stealing and stealing is against the law and various "moral codes". I know I could download expensive software off the net and notthing would ever come of it. At what point should I stop? What if I could electronically transfer money form Bill Gates's account to my own and not be caught, whould that be going to far? See what I mean?


TALON

kingjames1

A brief summary:

Daemon holds that objective meaning is an incoherent idea (like square circles). Meaning is by definition subjective, and because there is no God to have a 'transcendent subjectivity', meaning must be located purely within us.

Hobbs, on the other hand, holds that cause-effect sequence seen in the natural universe indicates that actions have consequences. This has evident 'meaning' to the thinking subject. I want to do those actions which will benefit my projects. So meaning is grounded is objective reality: namely, the rational structure of the universe (i.e event A happened because of or was caused by event B).

Babelfish said something about dumbo...

Is this accurate?

J.

babelfish

kj1 -

My understanding of your viewpoint is that you think any morality exhibited by atheists who were once Christians is simply a sort of residual Christian morality that has stuck with them, become habitual, so to speak.

Is this accurate?

kingjames1

Well, kinda. Actually, when speaking of North American, 21st century athiests - living in the post-christian society we do - i believe that such atheists who want to affirm ethics of some sort as binding or transcultural (e.g. killing Jews in Nazi shower rooms is "bad" and should have been stopped - for no other political or economic reasons, e.g. future relations with nations who might be sympathetic with the Jews), are carrying cultural baggage - namely christian cultural baggage.

But, perhaps ex-Xtians who are now athiests and hold to some type of morality are carrying some of their old faith into their new one?

But more than that, I believe that God created humanity in the divine image, such that we creatures cannot stray too far from general revelation (not, at least, without severe psychological and spiritual problems ala the suicidal nihilist or amoral socio-path). We cannot deny that killing innocent people is wrong, even if our worldviews cannot justify such a claim - and NOT because we have been so deeply programmed by the arbitrary conventions of our society or our genome, but because we're human (stamped with the imago Dei).


J.

Thanks for not taking my dumbo comment in the wrong spirit - you have to be careful how joke around here.

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

babelfish

One needs a thick skin to survive around here, kj1, as you've not doubt figured out by now...

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

I'd like to assert that, as social animals, we have a vested interest in being accepted by our fellow human beings. We're born with an innate need to be accepted and even admired. I believe this is biological in nature. We've evolved to need other human beings, because they are so necessary to our survival. When we gain their approval, we have a sense of well-being.

When we're living a moral life, more people accept and love us. When we do things like lie, cheat, steal, etc., even if we try really hard not to get caught, we fear being found out and being ostracized by those around us. This is a very uncomfortable feeling. I like to call this feeling your "conscience."

There's nothing very supernatural going on here. No missives from on high. Just the need to be accepted.

Okay, your turn!

kingjames1

So, according to this view, ethics is essentially self-serving (i.e. self-esteem or being loved by others). What about the traditional ethical ideal of self-sacrifice? How does that contribute to my survival?

Also, it seems that it is 'okay' to be immoral as long as no one finds out or knows about it - e.g. the murderer who never gets caught (have you seen the excellent Woody Allen movie "Crimes and Misdemeanors"?)

J.

babelfish

That's easy. Think about the kudos that go along with being a hero. I know that sounds cynical. I don't mean it that way. But what better way to garner a little admiration than by being self-sacrificing? Even if you die a hero's death, you ensure that your family will be very well looked-after - just look at Todd Beamer's widow and children. (I know, I know, more and more cynical!)

No matter how hard you try to keep your crimes concealed, there's always the possibility, and the fear, of getting caught. Look at Bill Clinton, how he plummeted in the public's estimation after everyone found out what he'd been doing. Or O. J. Simpson. Everyone knows he did it, even though he seemingly got away with it. I wouldn't like to be in either one of their shoes, would you?

daemon

Generally correct, though I do not dismiss the idea of some unknown entity having an "optimal" set of values. I am very skeptical of the idea of such a value set--and the holder--existing, as no two people who claim to know what those values are appear to agree, nor have I been able to verify in any way the existence of such an entity.

I think causal might be a better word than rational in this case. Please note that this view and mine are not mutually exclusive, though he and I may disagree on particulars. I believe that some values are based on data, and as such have some basis in objective reality. However, some of that data may be false, and every person does not necessarily recieve identical data, so values are subjective in this fashion.

Radcliffe Emerson

Most atheists I know have higher morals and a better respect for their fellow human beings than most of the Christians I know.

Bible Humper

Have you noticed how the gorilla deity wisely taught his people not to kill one another, even while they violently decide who will be dominant?

Isn't it a marvel how moral all social animals are? The animal deities did a great job indeed!

Alternatively, perhaps Xians have merely codified, and given divine meaning to, the natural social instincts of the human animal.

Interestingly, the parts of the world that have only heard of Yahweh relatively recently nonetheless developed moral codes similar in all important respects to the xian flavour independantly. Who wudda thunk it?

Also interesting is a tendency to credit these codes to some divine authority. If I didn't know better, I would think that all religions, not just all religions except yours, have similar geneses as pacifiers, comforters, and justifiers! Wait a sec, I do know better! Ha!

Interestingly, this scenario is totally indistinguishable from the evolutionary model in it's end results. I suppose that the natural Xian answer is that the deity had to make it indistinguishable so as to not let the cat out of the bag and ruin that oh-so-important "freewill to believe in him or not"?

Killing innocent people is a symptom of a diseased personality, nihilism doesn't create a compulsion to go on rampages.


It doesn't. It does contribute to the survival and/or advancement of the group.

There is no objective morality, we are puppets dangling by the strings of the blind watchmaker, dancing to his jig. Knowing this is not nearly enough to banish our innate social instincts, however.

Our brains are just wired this way, and since our consciousnesses are what we identify as "we", and they are the results of brain processes, it is no surprise that repect for human life is something that even nihilists are going retain.

You see an analogous example in the xian reaction to death. Why do xians fear for their lives just like everyone else does when they fully believe that there is a paradise beyond death waiting for them?

I call this one "No theists in the foxholes", the point being that it is strange behavior for a man who thinks that he is heading to a euphoric paradise upon death to hide in holes, desperately trying to prolong his life.

Why do xians experience grief when a loved one dies?

Why aren't xians happy if their children are stillborn, and thus don't risk getting themselves damned to hell during a full lifetime?

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper ]</p>