News:

There is also the shroud of turin, which verifies Jesus in a new way than other evidences.

Main Menu

Uncertain Male In search of the bases of Atheistic Morality

Started by zerp, March 25, 2011, 05:01:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Crow

Quote from: "AreEl"
Quote from: "Twentythree"What makes it wrong to commit unnecessary violence? What constitutes "unnecessary" in the first place? Simply because it seems unnecessary to me, is it then morally wrong?

''Violence'' is OK if it furthers your goals. If you consider a level of violence ''unnecessary'' it is probably because your empathy is higher.


WTF! How can violence ever be "OK" to further goals? by that logic I could kill all my business competitors as that would help further my goals. no that's not "OK". Violence is only "OK" if you need to protect your own life, and then it still has its limits.
Retired member.

AreEl

Quote from: "Crow"
Quote from: "AreEl"
Quote from: "Twentythree"What makes it wrong to commit unnecessary violence? What constitutes "unnecessary" in the first place? Simply because it seems unnecessary to me, is it then morally wrong?

''Violence'' is OK if it furthers your goals. If you consider a level of violence ''unnecessary'' it is probably because your empathy is higher.


WTF! How can violence ever be "OK" to further goals? by that logic I could kill all my business competitors as that would help further my goals. no that's not "OK". Violence is only "OK" if you need to protect your own life, and then it still has its limits.

I was answering the questions using the worldview of pure Individualism. A smart individualist has to balance the possible consequences of his actions and the impact they may have on his goals. So, ''killing all my business competitors''  would - probably - not further your goals.  Individualism stresses self-interest more than other worldviews such as Humanism and Naturalism, for example.
''I believe in God...it's his ground crew I have a problem with!''  -a former coworker

Crow

Quote from: "AreEl"I was answering the questions using the worldview of pure Individualism. A smart individualist has to balance the possible consequences of his actions and the impact they may have on his goals.

What violence can help further a goal from a pure individualist point of view and still be ok? I was under the preconception that humanism was a form of individualism as it recognises the individual within society but unlike other forms of individualism thinks society should work together rather than be under at state of anarchy. I personally can see no example that a "smart individualist" could give that would positively effect there goal by using violence, as all forms of violence in most countries is considered illegal and would have a negative effect on there goal - unless that goal was immoral to begin with.
Retired member.

AreEl

Quote from: "Crow"What violence can help further a goal from a pure individualist point of view and still be ok?

Strict Individualism wouldn't see violence as inherently ''bad'' as it may be necessary in certain circumstances.

Quote from: "Crow"I was under the preconception that humanism was a form of individualism as it recognises the individual within society but unlike other forms of individualism thinks society should work together rather than be under at state of anarchy.

Individualism and Humanism do share certain notions but one doesn't spring from the other. No Individualist could agree with Point #4 of The Humanist Manifesto ,for example:

Because humans are social creatures, everyone ought to create mutually beneficial relationships that are not violent, including relationships between countries. All wars could be avoided if relationships were established between all peoples.

Reading between the lines, you can grasp that the Humanist has the notion of corporate responsability (responsibility of the group, the nation, etc.) and that ''good'' springs from harmonious  relationships. Also, there is the notion of a quasi-Christian morality with importance placed on peace and ''goodness''. There is no notion of corporate responsibility in Individualism - as its name implies! - nor is tolerance of the other considered an a priori ''good'' value, as in Humanism.  

Quote from: "Crow"I personally can see no example that a "smart individualist" could give that would positively effect there goal by using violence, as all forms of violence in most countries is considered illegal and would have a negative effect on there goal - unless that goal was immoral to begin with.

Violence - brutal force - is justified and encouraged by a number of worldviews, including Islam and Hinduism. A strict Individualist would only see violence as a tool; it is neither ''moral'' / ''immoral'' as such.

Anyway, we're getting away from the original discussion!
''I believe in God...it's his ground crew I have a problem with!''  -a former coworker

Crow

@AreEl

Interesting view on morality, not ones that I totally agree with but there are some that I do agree with. As you may have been able to tell my views are more in line with the humanist way of thinking. I was curious about your view on violence as it was totally opposing to my own but fully aware that it is a popular way of thinking (especially within politics) but never had the opportunity to question somebody with those views. I have personally experienced violence at the hands of someone trying to further there own goals and is not something I could ever endorse, as I know that these actions breed hostility against the ones who engaged the act of violence and can easily create a tit for tat situation that is negative for both sides.
Retired member.

Whitney

This is a side question.  Which came first?  Humanism the philosophy, American Humanists or the Council for Secular Humanism.  I ask because I agree with the general notion that humans ought to work together but I cannot stand behind the Manifesto because (aside from being able to nit pick at it) i don't like that it is dictated.  I can't stand behind American Humanists because they have apparently decided humanism includes all animals and that we should all be vegan:  http://www.americanhumanist.org/HNN/det ... priorities

I have quit using the humanist label because I don't want to be associated with the organized version of it.

Twentythree

Wouldn’t violence just be an extension of aggression, and doesn’t Dawkins explain that aggression will only be genetically selected up to its point of stability? That being the case wouldn’t violence only find an evolutionary foothold at the point where it is stable, overuse of violent aggression would be selected out just as quickly as no violent aggression at all. So as an extension of aggression I think violence has a very comfortable niche, and if used properly can be very effective, just look at dictators, drug cartels, organized crime, and any military force. As for its moral implications we have to understand that morality is part of society and should be looked at separately from genetic influences. We have domesticated ourselves and therefore operate outside of the normal parameter of natural selection. In that regard any set of rules we agree to live by, (in my case, the constitution of the united states of America) by default become our basic moral guideline. This of course is just a guideline for success in this country, and the rules we agree to become more and more precisely defined as we narrow our environment. National laws build the first level of moral conduct, regional laws build another, community rules are another and then there are all sorts of unspoken rules in our professional, personal and family lives that all have to be analyzed and adapted to before we can stand back and view a complete moral framework. This framework of course is fluid and can and will change as the nature of your environment changes. Take infanticide for example, throughout history we can see that certain cultures not only practiced but encouraged and in some cases demanded that certain children be killed. In our modern western sensibilities we have built up a notion that infanticide is so morally wrong that certain people believe it is wrong to abort a fetus or even use contraception as it may potentially prevent a life from even forming in the first place. These extremes have got to illustrate that evolution has given us the propensity to form cultures, but culture, or relationships are what build our moral framework, up to and including its acceptance of violence, or in other words how effective violence can be as a tool, whether used inside the moral frame work or outside the moral framework as an outlaw.

DeterminedJuliet

Quote from: "Whitney"This is a side question.  Which came first?  Humanism the philosophy, American Humanists or the Council for Secular Humanism.  I ask because I agree with the general notion that humans ought to work together but I cannot stand behind the Manifesto because (aside from being able to nit pick at it) i don't like that it is dictated.  I can't stand behind American Humanists because they have apparently decided humanism includes all animals and that we should all be vegan:  http://www.americanhumanist.org/HNN/det ... priorities

I have quit using the humanist label because I don't want to be associated with the organized version of it.

I have to admit that I'm only familiar with Humanism as a philosophy. Up until now, I haven't investigated the American Humanists or the Council for Secular Humanism. I checked out the link you put up and I couldn't get past "You carnivores, or “carnies,” are torturing animals for fun. Harsh?  True? Both yes." Really? all carnivores are torturing animals for fun?! I guess it's a good thing my vegetarian husband doesn't feel that way or our marriage would be a lot rockier. Holy moly.
"We've thought of life by analogy with a journey, with pilgrimage which had a serious purpose at the end, and the THING was to get to that end; success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you're dead. But, we missed the point the whole way along; It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing, or dance, while the music was being played.

Twentythree

I was not familiar with the AHA until now, but it seems oddly close to a religion when you have clearly defined rules for your worldview. When those views then contradict with one of your groups own core principles then you are really starting down the slippery slope of a religion. I am still secure in my thoughts that non belief does not exclude you from religion.

Direct excerpt from the “Manifesto”

“Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge.”

“You carnivores, or “carnies,” are torturing animals for fun. Harsh?  True? Both yes.”
“It may be a rotting carcass, but it can be so tasty with just a bit of proper cooking and seasoning. Convenience and taste are good reasons to dine on a tasty flank steak or Vienna sausage.”

These statements do not sound terribly scientific. The science only comes down to greenhouse gasses. A UN study in 2006 confirmed that the livestock “industry” was responsible for 14-22% of the overall CO2 equivalent gasses produced annually. That is all well and good but “Industry” often includes, all of the shipping, construction, power consumption and use of resources including land and water involved in the production and distribution of all livestock products worldwide.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

Well if we all put down our forks and knives tomorrow what kind of cruelty would that inflict? Thousands of workers worldwide would lose their livelihood as their investments become defunct because worldwide demand for their product has vanished. Meaning that already struggling farmers, particularly those in developing countries would “suffer”. The livestock itself, being domesticated animals would be doomed to death without a human hand to supply food and protection from predators. Those that did not die from starvation or predation would become feral and if their populations go unchecked there is no knowing what sort of adverse invasive environmental damage these creatures would do. We would not be releasing animals back to the wild because these animals never existed in the wild. Without the meat industry to supply food to an ever growing population we would have to find a substitute. One of which could be soy as it seems to be fairly popular these days, and depending on which scientists you ask, the soy “industry” is not much better that the livestock industry.

“Even in the U.S., soy is grown most often industrially as a monocrop â€" a single crop in a giant field â€" meaning that it requires plenty of pesticides to maintain.  Most of the soy grown on our shores and abroad is also genetically modified, something many argue was not properly tested before being okayed by the USDA. And it is not just vegans who are noshing on it; soy finds its way into most of the products on our supermarket’s shelves these days, in the form of vegetable oil or lecithin, which is used as an emulsifier.”

“Beyond the environmental implications, the health implications are daunting. While the majority of scientific studies tout soy’s ability to regulate hormones for women, others discuss a connection to breast cancer.  And as for men, soy is said to lower their sperm count in large quantities.  This is all encouraging news for moderation.”

http://civileats.com/2009/01/27/a-vegan ... rspective/

“Friends of the Earth International1 strongly rejects the current process of the Roundtable on
Responsible Soy (RTRS). The Roundtable completely fails to address the major social and
environmental impacts of industrial-scale soy cultivation and frustrates real solutions.”

Conversion of forests and savannahs and related loss of biodiversity, climate change
through land-use changes, fertiliser use and NOX emissions, disruption of surface and
ground water and rainfall patterns.
 Social problems such as land conflicts and human rights violations, loss of livelihoods,
poisoning and expulsion of rural communities, small farmers and indigenous peoples.
 Forced displacement of the local population into cities and undisturbed natural areas,
increasing concentration of land, and related rural unemployment, poverty and
malnutrition.
 Displacement of existing agriculture (particularly cattle ranching and small holder
agriculture) to unexploited and vulnerable primary forests and savannahs.
 Rising food prices and loss of food security and sovereignty due to displacement of
staple food crops and increasing corporate control over food production.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... SA&cad=rja


The AHA argument is an ideal argument, bolstered by a few facts to promote fundamentalist position. A true rationalist would never make such sweeping claims as they would know as anyone with even a pinch of evolutionary insight would know that reduction in one area would mean an instant increase in another area with sometimes dramatic consequences until a new equilibrium is formed.

Twentythree

Sorry for the long post above...but i felt it necessary.

Recusant

Quote from: "AreEl"Violence - brutal force - is justified and encouraged by a number of worldviews, including Islam and Hinduism.
We wouldn't want to leave out your own particular mythology now would we, AreEl?  Even skipping over the numerous passages in the Old Testament which are evidence of YHVH's predilection for violence, both directly and through commands to his chosen people, we can find instances where Jesus commanded his followers to engage in violence:

QuoteLuke 19:27:

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.
QuoteJohn 15:6:

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned.
You can scurry to erect the usual deflections and defenses based on "interpretation" and "context," but both of these passages are pretty clear. Christianity is no more a religion of peace than Islam or Hinduism.  Full stop.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


AreEl

Quote from: "Crow"@AreEl

Interesting view on morality, not ones that I totally agree with but there are some that I do agree with. As you may have been able to tell my views are more in line with the humanist way of thinking. I was curious about your view on violence as it was totally opposing to my own but fully aware that it is a popular way of thinking (especially within politics) but never had the opportunity to question somebody with those views. I have personally experienced violence at the hands of someone trying to further there own goals and is not something I could ever endorse, as I know that these actions breed hostility against the ones who engaged the act of violence and can easily create a tit for tat situation that is negative for both sides.

Crow, I originally answered zerp's questions (below) as an excercise, nothing more. I chose Individualism for the exercise because it is very simple and based on self-interest, nothing more. There's no morality, no god, no patriotism, there's absolutely no corrupting influence from outside of Self. I do not hold to this worldview, so I am unable to answer your question.

Another thing, most people do not hold ''purebred'' worldviews. Most personal perspectives - like mongrel dogs - will have notions from a variety of worldviews with a major one poking through...like a dog that has the coat of a German Sheppard, the body of an Afgan and the disposition of a poodle. I'm sure you get my analogy!  Such a dog looks German Sheppard from afar but the more you examine him, the more you pick up other cues to his ancestry. Ditto for people; by observing and listening you can figure out on what premises they operate.


Quote from: "zerp"Questions i have to atheists about basic altruistic morality:

Why should i care about the well-being of others?

Why should i do to others as i would like done to me? What if they do not do the same?

What makes all humans "equal"? As in equally deserving of all rights? Why does this apply to humans and humans only?

What makes it wrong to commit unnecessary violence? What constitutes "unnecessary" in the first place? Simply because it seems unnecessary to me, is it then morally wrong?

When in a moral dilemma of making a choice between two  morall questionable choices, are there any rules of thumb as to which to choose? How are these rules, if any, justified?

Why should i be honest?

How does one justify construing another's acts as wrong?

What do i stand to gain from being moral or selfless?

EDIT for Recusant: This topic isn't about Christianity. The topic's title is Uncertain Male in Search of the Bases of Atheistic Morality. Hello?
''I believe in God...it's his ground crew I have a problem with!''  -a former coworker

Recusant

Quote from: "AreEl"EDIT for Recusant: This topic isn't about Christianity. The topic's title is Uncertain Male in Search of the Bases of Atheistic Morality. Hello?
Nor is it about Islam or Hinduism.  Enough said.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Davin

Quote from: "Recusant"
Quote from: "AreEl"EDIT for Recusant: This topic isn't about Christianity. The topic's title is Uncertain Male in Search of the Bases of Atheistic Morality. Hello?
Nor is it about Islam or Hinduism.  Enough said.
Haha, yeah, enough said.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

DeterminedJuliet

I find the arguments about individualism interesting, but I don't think many people could actually pull off that level of detachment from society. Most of us are social creatures heavily influenced by our culture and social networks (for better and for worse). I think someone would have to be the very definition of a sociopath to be a true "individualist". Most atheists that I know definitely don't fit that mould.
"We've thought of life by analogy with a journey, with pilgrimage which had a serious purpose at the end, and the THING was to get to that end; success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you're dead. But, we missed the point the whole way along; It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing, or dance, while the music was being played.