Godless morality

[harriet_tubman]

Really? Why wasn't I notified of these two groups? Are the groups always optimistic and pessimistic, because I am optimistic about some things and pessimistic about other things and neutral or have no opinion about others, do we create different groups for each thing or do we count up the views we hold on everything and whichever has the most is the group you get placed in? I'd rather just not bother and stay out of both groups myself and continue to make decisions on the available information instead of preconceived ideas. However you said it was inevitable, so do I get like a letter in the mail from the group I'm selected for?

the point is you believe that human beings can decide what is moral in an accidental universe.  that is impossible.  in an accidental universe a good action is that which helps YOU accumulate power.  if someone takes power from you he is bad, but that person that just took power from you he did a good thing from his point of view.
inevitably some humans will understand that this dog eat dog philo will get us nowhere and that we should work together.  but some humans, like stalin, can not be persuaded of this and will think that the best course of action is the accumulation of personal power.


in an intended universe there is one goal: that the universe should continue.  anything that fosters the universe's continuity is good, anything that harms it is bad.

Like I said before, we create laws based on things we have in common.

well how about things that we do not have in common.  only 4% of the population is homosexual.  should they be excluded because they are not common?  

Don't steal is based on all of us not wanting people to take our stuff,

in most third world countries 1% own 50% of the land.  is it lawful to steal their land and give it to the poor?

don't kill comes from all of us not wanting to be murdered... etc.

how about killing stalin? you see, if you cannot anchor morality in an objective fact that doesn't change then what is good depends on what majority wants.  what the majority wants changes each decade.

no, we don't make crap up we start from the premise that construction is good, destruction is bad.  if an action tends towards destruction it's bad, if an action fosters construction, life, then it is good

Why do we start from that assumption? Without deconstruction we'd all starve to death.[/quote]

what you're referring to is terminating harmful life.  terminating a destructive life force is good.

[harriet_tubman]

I'm just curious as to how destruction can be considered "bad" when it is a necessary part of life.  For example, the death of one organism contributes to the life of another.  I think the destruction=bad, construction=good is an elementary view of things.

there is good destruction and bad destruction.  killing stalin, which kruschev and 3 others actually did, that was a good deed.

dropping a bomb on an afghan wedding party under the pretext of getting al qaida that's bad.

you have to measure an action's goodness by asking whether or not it contributes to the continuity of the universe, removes pain, and increases happiness.

[John09]

i'm well aware that theists are capable of having a primitive morality.  no one really seems to understand where right and wrong come from.  there can only be "good" if there is a goal.  without goals there is no standard by which one can measure an actions goodness.  i think most theists will agree that the goal of the designer is to see his design continue in the most pleasant, less painful way possible.  as far as what actions contribute to the design's continuity that's a much more difficult debate.

If that is the designer's goal, then the designer's goal has been thoroughly thwarted by all the evil in this world. Much of this "design" has in fact not continued. Much of this design has not been pleasant. Much of this design is painful.

[EssejSllim]

there is good destruction and bad destruction.  killing stalin, which kruschev and 3 others actually did, that was a good deed.

dropping a bomb on an afghan wedding party under the pretext of getting al qaida that's bad.

you have to measure an action's goodness by asking whether or not it contributes to the continuity of the universe, removes pain, and increases happiness.

So what you're saying is that good isn't objective and that it changes with the circumstances? On a side note, the continuity of the universe does not depend on the existence of the human race. Even if Stalin had continued his reign as dictator of the USSR and by chance the world did experience nuclear Armageddon, the universe would have continued on. To quote Alan Moore - "Everyone will die. And the universe will not even notice". And if the continuity of the universe depends on the removal of pain, why don't we just annihilate the human race and end pain for good?

in order for things to be objectively good then the definition of good must be anchored on some fact that is independent of humans. humans do not decide what good is. if humans decide what good is then what is good will change with each century

Considering the fact that what is considered "good" has changed (a lot more commonly than each century) you have just proved that humans do decide what is good. Bravo!

[John09]

.  humans do not decide what good is.  if humans decide what good is then what is good will change with each century.

i believe that the fact from which the definition of good comes is the fact that construction is good and destruction is bad.  a universe where destruction is good cannot exist long.

What is good has indeed changed through time. Three thousand years ago people had different views of good and bad, especially regarding theist's ideas of what god considered good.

Where do you get the idea that destruction is bad? That is an objective statement. Would you say that the destruction of slavery would be bad? Would you say that the construction of laws encouraging slavery would be good?

[i_am_i]

in an accidental universe a good action is that which helps YOU accumulate power.

Simple-minded nonsensical rubbish. Why is a mouse when it spins? Now why would anyone try to engage in an intelligent conversation with someone who says "in an accidental universe a good action is that which helps YOU accumulate power?" Absolutely pointless. This is a person with the IQ of a tool shed.

[harriet_tubman]

So what you're saying is that good isn't objective and that it changes with the circumstances?

almost every circumstance is different.  every once in a while you'll find two circumstances exactly alike.  the standard doesn't change however.  think of whether or not a law is constitutional.  every law is different but the constitution remains the same.

Considering the fact that what is considered "good" has changed (a lot more commonly than each century) you have just proved that humans do decide what is good. Bravo!

humans decide what they think is good, but they're wrong.

[harriet_tubman]

Where do you get the idea that destruction is bad? That is an objective statement. Would you say that the destruction of slavery would be bad? Would you say that the construction of laws encouraging slavery would be good?

the criterion to which we measure an actions goodness is whether or not it promotes the cosmos' continuity and whether it decreases pain and increases joy.  destruction of slavery, good, constructing laws that encourage slavery, bad, for reasons which are obvious to both of us

[pinkocommie]

So by this:

no, we don't make crap up we start from the premise that construction is good, destruction is bad.  if an action tends towards destruction it's bad, if an action fosters construction, life, then it is good

What you really meant was this:

no, we don't make crap up we start from the premise that construction is good [unless it's bad, then it's not considered construction anymore], destruction is bad [unless it's good, in which case it's not destruction].  if an action tends towards destruction it's bad [unless it isn't], if an action fosters construction, life, then it is good [unless it's bad].

 

[harriet_tubman]

What you really meant was this:

no, we don't make crap up we start from the premise that construction is good [unless it's bad, then it's not considered construction anymore], destruction is bad [unless it's good, in which case it's not destruction].  if an action tends towards destruction it's bad [unless it isn't], if an action fosters construction, life, then it is good [unless it's bad].

 

here's a more exact statement of my belief:
the criterion to which we measure an actions goodness is whether or not it promotes the cosmos' continuity and whether it decreases pain and increases joy.

i've listed mine, let's see yours

[harriet_tubman]

by the way, esse j slim, i see you refer to yourself as a rational moralist.  have you ever seen anyone call themselves an irrational moralist?  you might as well have as your title: good person.  anyway, the definition for what is rational is not exactly clear but let's say it means there is reason behind one's actions.  ok, what's the reason behind your moral actions?  how do come up with an irrefutable rational definition of a moral act in an accidental universe and how do you know it's the RIGHT one.  

each creature is fighting for its existence, especially the meat eaters.  how are you going to reason with the snake and say you're bad because you eat mice.  as for human morality, let's take all these primitive americans that believe that if we cut and run in afghan then the "terrorists" have won.  how do you come up with a reason to persuade them that they're wrong, especially when they believe it's kill or be killed

[pinkocommie]

here's a more exact statement of my belief:
the criterion to which we measure an actions goodness is whether or not it promotes the cosmos' continuity and whether it decreases pain and increases joy.

i've listed mine, let's see yours

By whose standards are you calculating this decrease of pain and increase of joy?  These are subjective concepts, which makes your revised statement as worthless as the statement made before.  Not to mention, what exactly do you mean by 'promotes the cosmos' continuity'?  We have no influence on the cosmos' continuity, so why would our criterion to which we measure an actions goodness include this concern about which we are entirely impotent?

See my what?  Statement of belief?  I don't have one.  I'm not terribly big into beliefs.  I prefer facts, and I'm very secure with saying 'I don't know for sure' until I know the facts.

[harriet_tubman]

By whose standards are you calculating this decrease of pain and increase of joy?

ok, i admit that was a bad statement on my part and i apologize.  there is good pain and there is bad pain. certainly hitler suffering pain because he couldn't take stalingrad is invalid pain.  

what exactly do you mean by 'promotes the cosmos' continuity'?

if you're a designer your whole modus operandi is about manipulating reality to suit your desire.  living objects can manipulate reality much more so than nonliving objects, therefore life is the agent of the designer.  life therefore is good, death bad.  joy which promotes life is good, joy which promotes death is bad. pain which promotes death is bad, pain which discourages death is necessary if not good.

We have no influence on the cosmos' continuity,

wrong.  life is the core concern of the creator.  the earth is just a platform on which to build his more complex creation, which is life.  

See my what?  Statement of belief?  I don't have one.  I'm not terribly big into beliefs.  I prefer facts, and I'm very secure with saying 'I don't know for sure' until I know the facts.

what facts do you point to affirm your knowledge that the cosmos is an accident? post on other thread.

[JillSwift]

wrong.  life is the core concern of the creator.  the earth is just a platform on which to build his more complex creation, which is life.  

How can you possibly know this?

[harriet_tubman]

wrong.  life is the core concern of the creator.  the earth is just a platform on which to build his more complex creation, which is life.  

How can you possibly know this?

it doesn't take much too logic to conclude that if you like to create, creating a living object is much more satisfying than a nonliving one.  i don't think that is a very outrageous assumption.