News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

Godless morality

Started by winterbottom, May 06, 2008, 06:36:22 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

epepke

Quote from: "humblesmurph"
Quote from: "epepke"It occurs to me to wonder why it is that religion comes up as a topic frequently enough to be troublesome.  I'm having a hard time thinking of a case where it has come up recently, and that includes interactions with women in Alabama.  When it does come up, it's after it wouldn't matter, and it hasn't ever been a source of real friction, though I do tease them some.  Perhaps a faster onset would be something for you to explore.  In my experience, faster onset also leads to saner relationships--any artificial delay beyond the level of establishing comfort seems to be a red flag.  Too late is just as bad as too early.

Religion likely comes up for two reasons, the kind of women I date, and the amount of talking we do before we actually get into anything exciting.  The woman I date are largely black Americans. They tend to be more theistic.  The way I get closer to women is listening to them talk.  When this talking goes unchecked, some form of spiritual question often comes my way.

I think it's likely that it isn't the fact that they are Black Americans.  While the religiosity of Black people and especially Black women is legendary (I often hear Black atheists, both male and female, complaining about it), I haven't found this to become an issue.  Besides my first Black lover, who was an acknowledged atheist, I'm pretty sure that most have had some theist leanings, and I've sat behind many a coffee-table creches, it just doesn't seem to come up, really.  Actually, the closest that I've had to continuing discussions is with a woman who says she's a Black woman who doesn't know she's Black.  She admits that she has just never known any atheists and grew up with a low level of religion.

I'm guessing that religiosity is on the list of things that people think they should talk about on a date and that they just go down the list.  That's one of the things I dislike about traditional dating, so I avoid it when possible.

Thumpalumpacus

Here in California, the defeat of Prop 8 is chalked up in part to the turnout from theist blacks coming out to vote for Obama, and against the proposition at the same time.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

humblesmurph

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Here in California, the defeat of Prop 8 is chalked up in part to the turnout from theist blacks coming out to vote for Obama, and against the proposition at the same time.

The underlined saddened and vexed me greatly.  They tried to do the same thing here in DC.  Those theist blacks were likely mostly some form of Christian.  Christianity was a tool to take liberty away from blacks during slavery.  Scripture helped to keep the black slaves docile by telling them to be good servants in this life and receive heaven in the afterlife.

Many generations later, black Christians are a major force in denying another oppressed group their personal liberties.  

Shit, the problem isn't with the women I date, it's me.  Deep down I'm disgusted by black female Christians.  I get why humankind clings to religion, but I'll probably never accept the fact American blacks have embraced this particular religion given our relatively recent history with it.

Thumpalumpacus

Yeah, it's a sad state of affairs.  Almost as if they embraced the flog that kept the slaves in their place.  It surprises me that they would miss the historical irony.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

epepke

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Yeah, it's a sad state of affairs.  Almost as if they embraced the flog that kept the slaves in their place.  It surprises me that they would miss the historical irony.

It's not almost as if; it's exactly as if, because that's what happened.  The reason it happened is that this is what human beings do.  If I am surprised at anything, it is not that it happens; it is that people go to such extremes to deny it.  Still, I know why, so it's not a big surprise, just an unfortunate one.

Nietzsche had some useful things to say about this.  He called it ressentiment or slave morality.  Basically, when left to themselves, people develop noble morality, where good involves having the power to do things.  Bad is little more than the absence of good, or something that gets in the way of doing good.  Slaves, however, do not have that option.  Their only creative act is negation.  So they develop a morality that is simply the negation of noble morality.  What the master can do is perforce evil, and good is the opposite of evil.  So we get ideas like "the meek shall inherit the Earth" whereas even a casual observation results in the conclusion that the meek just get it in the neck.

The problem comes when the need for actual slavery goes away.  The slavish attitudes persist and self-perpetuate, because it is difficult to give up the "superior" morality of not being a master, even of oneself.

DropLogic


Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "epepke"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Yeah, it's a sad state of affairs.  Almost as if they embraced the flog that kept the slaves in their place.  It surprises me that they would miss the historical irony.

It's not almost as if; it's exactly as if, because that's what happened.

I used the word "almost" because the word "flog" is metaphorical.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Category

Quote from: "Tank"Surprising as it may seem, this bit of wisdom came at different times from two different ladies. Both had husbands that played away but could not keep their mouths shut about it! They sort of required forgiveness for their transgressions. In both cases the marriages lasted long enough for the kids to grow up and leave home and then the wives kicked out their husbands! Both women just got fed up with having to be emotionally complicit with their husbands and didn't like getting their noses 'rubbed in it'. I work away from home a lot and my wife knows that I will come home to her and I always will. She works away too and I know she would always come home. I don't ask her what she gets up to and she doesn't ask me. We treated the kids in much the same way. Once they were 16 (age of consent in the UK) their rooms became their own. I would much rather that my kids were safe where I knew they could get help than elsewhere where they couldn't. Given that freedom they respected it. I don't think all kids could be treated that way, we were careful that ours could. None of my kids are theists and none of their partners are either which I am quite proud of. They made their own minds up and came down on the side of a superstition free life.

Adopt me. Now.
I ask theists if God is omnipotent. They say yes.
I ask theists if God loves us. They say yes.
I read the news paper or look on the web or remember other people's sad stories or remember things that happened to me...and I see that no omnipotent entity loves us.
I ask theists if they can prove their god. They can't.
So, I have excellent reason to

Tank

Quote from: "Category"
Quote from: "Tank"Surprising as it may seem, this bit of wisdom came at different times from two different ladies. Both had husbands that played away but could not keep their mouths shut about it! They sort of required forgiveness for their transgressions. In both cases the marriages lasted long enough for the kids to grow up and leave home and then the wives kicked out their husbands! Both women just got fed up with having to be emotionally complicit with their husbands and didn't like getting their noses 'rubbed in it'. I work away from home a lot and my wife knows that I will come home to her and I always will. She works away too and I know she would always come home. I don't ask her what she gets up to and she doesn't ask me. We treated the kids in much the same way. Once they were 16 (age of consent in the UK) their rooms became their own. I would much rather that my kids were safe where I knew they could get help than elsewhere where they couldn't. Given that freedom they respected it. I don't think all kids could be treated that way, we were careful that ours could. None of my kids are theists and none of their partners are either which I am quite proud of. They made their own minds up and came down on the side of a superstition free life.

Adopt me. Now.
lol

Sorry my kid raising days are over, I'm looking forward to being a granddad in around 4 to 8 weeks  :eek:
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Inevitable Droid

I used to think that saying morality is subjective somehow negated morality.  I recently came to realize that saying morality is subjective merely clarifies one of its fundamental attributes.  Subjectivity is necessary (though not sufficient) for morality to exist.

The objective dimension of morality begins and ends with the requirement that I have a conscience.  This is merely a tautology.  To be moral and to have a conscience are one and the same thing.  If you're moral, you have a conscience.  If you aren't moral, you don't have a conscience.  If you don't have a conscience, you aren't moral.  Contradicting these statements would require contradiction of what the words themselves mean.

What sort of conscience shall I have?  This is a question that can only be answered subjectively, because subjectivity is a fundamental attribute of what morality is.  Conscience is an element of the psyche!  A component of the personality!  A running algorithm within the bio-computer!  What else could it be but subjective?  Psyche, personality, bio-computer - these words are all pointers to the concept of subjectivity.  A psyche is a subject.  A personality is a subject.  A bio-computer is a subject.

Objectively, then, I suggest to anyone suggestible, "Have a conscience."  I then shut up, because objectively I have nothing more to say, and subjectively I can really only talk to myself.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

dloubet

If you define morals as those behaviors that allow humans to live together in peace and harmony, then rape is objectively off the table.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "dloubet"If you define morals as those behaviors that allow humans to live together in peace and harmony, then rape is objectively off the table.

Certainly the principle that our behaviors should allow us to live together in peace and harmony is a valid premise for any legal system, but morality and legality don't have to intersect and often don't.  Subjectively I might agree with your proposed definition for morals but objectively there is nothing underpinning it.  Morality has from time to time led humans into the opposite of peace and harmony.  Likewise, subjectively I include a no-rape principle in my conscience but objectively there is nothing underpinning it.  We can't solve the problem by defining morals in a congenial but arbitrary way.  The arbitrary is subjective.

Our instinct is to claim objectivity for our most deeply ingrained taboos.  These taboos feel objective to us.  No cannibalism.  No incest.  No parricide.  These taboos feel objective to most of us because they reside in a mental realm whose contents usually go unquestioned by us.  But the only reason those contents go unquestioned is because they were put there when we were too young for the kind of questioning we take for granted as adults.

There's an experiment we could run if law and conscience didn't preclude it.  We could attempt to raise a child to believe that rape, cannibalism, incest, and parricide were the most shining acts of sublime virtue, laudable to man and God, rightly rewarded by all legitimate authority, and the keys to the heavenly kingdom.  Let's pretend our experiment demonstrated that such training could yield its intended result.  Faced with a roomful of adult humans whose consciences demanded by all that's holy that they do everything in their power to rape, kill, and eat their parents, would we continue in our assertion that our taboos were objective?  How could we claim objectivity for a taboo that for someone else is the polar opposite of a taboo?

I might yearn to claim objectivity for my most treasured moral principles because I want to be able to convince people by logical argument to comply with said principles.  I want to be able to win a debate.  Because I revere logic, I want logic to champion my most treasured moral principles.  This is understandable but isn't really necessary for a healthy society or a healthy psyche.  A healthy society will pass laws against anything it perceives as contrary to what it means to be social.  A healthy psyche will develop a conscience that speaks against anything it perceives as contrary to what it means to be human.  The key word in both sentences is perceives.  Subjectivity is the seed from which social or psychic health or illness sprouts.  Subjectivity is the seed of law, just as likewise it is the seed of morality.  This assertion neither negates nor denigrates law or morals.  It merely clarifies their essences.  

The objectivity of legalism begins and ends with the maxim, "Have laws."  The objectivity of moralism begins and ends with the maxim, "Have a conscience."  From those positions we springboard immediately into subjectivity, and it is perfectly proper that we do so, for subjectivity is the arena in which these games  are played.  Instead of pursuing a more extended objectivity that will remain forever elusive, I propose we pursue a more extended subjectivity, one that knows itself and seeks to preserve the integrity of its nature.  Self-awareness and authenticity will refine our subjectivity and thus refine our laws and morals, yielding healthier societies and healthier psyches.  That is my hypothesis, which I invite us to test.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

penfold

Wow, thought this thread was long dead.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"The objectivity of legalism begins and ends with the maxim, "Have laws."  The objectivity of moralism begins and ends with the maxim, "Have a conscience."  From those positions we springboard immediately into subjectivity, and it is perfectly proper that we do so, for subjectivity is the arena in which these games  are played.  Instead of pursuing a more extended objectivity that will remain forever elusive, I propose we pursue a more extended subjectivity, one that knows itself and seeks to preserve the integrity of its nature.  Self-awareness and authenticity will refine our subjectivity and thus refine our laws and morals, yielding healthier societies and healthier psyches.  That is my hypothesis, which I invite us to test.

There is a lot in what you wrote (I have only quoted one passage, in the interests of space), which I agree with.

However there is an uncomfortable tension here. We express morals as universal maxims. We say “x is wrong” not “I wouldn't do x”. The latter may be correct, but we use the former, and with that we imply universal applicability. In other words 'conscience' while being subjective in nature is objective in content. Conscience is a capacity of judgement, and just as it allows us to judge ourselves it is also the mechanism by which we judge others. So if we have a 'conscience' we are doomed to talk and act as though morals are universal in nature (“if it is wrong for me then it is wrong for you”). Short of a huge paradigm shift the problem still stands.

Your point about legalism is well taken, however once again it is not so simple. While the ultimate justification of any rule of law is law itself; the way we construct our laws is bound up in morality. What should be understood is that laws require enforcement, and that requires consent of the population. This consent can be won by force (think Myanmar or DPK) but in our societies consent is won by appeal to ideas of 'right and wrong' and 'justice'.

A good example of this is file sharing on the internet. Once the general population reached the conclusion that downloading a song was not too much of a bite on their conscience then the IP law protecting it broke down. In effect IP laws preventing illegal downloads have ceased to be effective.  What a population sees as (un)acceptable (in terms of their own consciences) has a real and profound effect on our laws. So while at an ideal level legalism rests on the maxim “have laws”, at a practical level morality plays a fundamental role.

In short I agree with your analysis, however I don't think that it resolves the problem because: (a)conscience is inherently objective in content; and (b) legal systems (those not based on sheer force) require moral consent.

So we still need a justification for moral statements. Arguing that such statements are inherently subjective may have the virtue of being true, but it ignores the pragmatic need for us to justify them.

dloubet

QuoteCertainly the principle that our behaviors should allow us to live together in peace and harmony is a valid premise for any legal system, but morality and legality don't have to intersect and often don't. Subjectively I might agree with your proposed definition for morals but objectively there is nothing underpinning it.

Legal System? I'm not talking legal system.

Are you saying there are no behaviors that are objectively supportive of a peaceful harmonious society, and none that are inherently destructive to same? If there are such behaviors, then according to my definition they can objectively be called moral or immoral.

QuoteMorality has from time to time led humans into the opposite of peace and harmony.

Then according to my definition, those behaviors weren't actually moral.

Do you think the unfortunates in your thought experiment could create a happy and harmonious society based on the savage values you've supplied them with?

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "dloubet"Are you saying there are no behaviors that are objectively supportive of a peaceful harmonious society, and none that are inherently destructive to same?

No.  I'm saying a peaceful and harmonious society is only good subjectively.  In fact I'm saying anything we claim as good is only good subjectively, because subjectivity is a fundamental attribute of goodness.  The very concept of an "objective good" is an oxymoron.  If subjectivity ceased to exist, good and evil would simultaneously cease to exist.

QuoteThen according to my definition, those behaviors weren't actually moral.

True.  However, I dispute the validity of arbitrarily defining moral in such a way as to automatically include the things we like and automatically exclude the things we dislike, and then trying to argue that our definition, arbitrarily chosen, somehow supports the thesis that morality isn't arbitrary.

QuoteDo you think the unfortunates in your thought experiment could create a happy and harmonious society based on the savage values you've supplied them with?

Happy - yes.  Harmonious - no.  Happiness is notoriously fluid.  One man's heaven would be another man's hell.  Harmony might be precisely my vision of hell.  The life and death struggle between father and children could be exhilirating for them if they were raised to experience it that way.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.