Godless morality

[pinkocommie]

:yay:  

[Tank]

the creator of the universe has created a moral law independent of man's existence.  i've already stated what that is numerous times, so no need to repeat myself.

Your statements, unless backed up with evidence, are simply an act of intellectual masturbation and should really be carried out in the privacy of your own home.

[Cecilie]

[KDbeads]

[spoiler:nvfr3ew6][/spoiler:nvfr3ew6]

[philosoraptor]

[spoiler:1vdrt51r][/spoiler:1vdrt51r]

[pinkocommie]

Your statements, unless backed up with evidence, are simply an act of intellectual masturbation and should really be carried out in the privacy of your own home.

The interesting thing about ht is that he/she seems to believe that their perceptions about reality somehow count as evidence for their assertions.

By that logic, I have absolute evidence that I am a robot.  My evidence?  Pfft, it's pretty obvious I'm a robot.  You don't see it?  Well, you're obviously just being contrary, cuz I am one.  Yay!  

[Asmodean]

cuz I am one.  Yay!   :cool:

[Whitney]

you see you're just as guilty of assumption as i am

someone needs to learn how to read....

I never made a conclusion...you have.

[Whitney]

Your statements, unless backed up with evidence, are simply an act of intellectual masturbation and should really be carried out in the privacy of your own home.

The interesting thing about ht is that he/she seems to believe that their perceptions about reality somehow count as evidence for their assertions.

By that logic, I have absolute evidence that I am a robot.  My evidence?  Pfft, it's pretty obvious I'm a robot.  You don't see it?  Well, you're obviously just being contrary, cuz I am one.  Yay!   :bananacolor:

[Davin]

Yes exactly, you're a human (I'm assuming), and you're creating a concept of right and wrong.

wrong, newton did not create the concept of the laws of motion, they were always there and he discovered them.  

the creator of the universe has created a moral law independent of man's existence.  i've already stated what that is numerous times, so no need to repeat myself.

Wrong: Newton did create a concept of reality that he not only could provide evidence for, but could also demonstrate, show others how to verify it and predict how things would happen that turned out to be accurate.

If you're going to bring up Newton here's a quote:

I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses.  For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.

Because of your apparent lack of being able to understand things that other people have said: Sir Isaac Newton is saying that his theory only explains the motion of the object, not what caused the objects because trying to explain what caused the objects to move the way they do would be mere speculation. Of course to put this into context, Sir Newton said:

I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses;' for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis, and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.

Essentially Sir Newton shares my idea that if you don't have evidence to support your claim, your claim is useless.

So either support your claim or stop claiming it as truth. I seriously would have no problem if you accepted that your claims are not able to be supported by evidence making them just some idea that you rather like.

[The Black Jester]

Based on the discussion here, I would like to start a new thread:

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5063

Is there any absolute basis for morality?  In the absence of any such basis, are there good reasons, nevertheless, to be moral?  How do we decide what is moral without some absolute standard to reference?  How should disagreements about moral behavior be decided?  What options are available to us in making our choices?

[i_am_i]

First you need to define "moral, unless this one works:

Of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior; conforming to a standard of right behavior; sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment.

[The Black Jester]

First you need to define "moral, unless this one works:

Of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior; conforming to a standard of right behavior; sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment.

Yes.  Yes, a definition might be a good place to start, eh.   Oops.

Is that Merriam-Webster, by the way?  I love Merriam-Webster.  

There's also a decent, and much longer, discussion of morality and the difficulty in defining it, at the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy, for anyone who's interested:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Partly, I was rather hoping to hear how other people defined "moral" for themselves, and on what they based that definition, if anything.  But I understand that a productive discussion cannot proceed very far without an agreement on a definition.  

The problem I have with the above definition, personally, is that it begins to sound circular.  But maybe that's just me.  It's a good place to start, anyway.  This might turn out to be too broad for a single thread, in which case, I may have to try again with a more narrow question.  I was attempting to get at the decision making process by which we decide what behaviors not only to engage in (or refrain from), but what behavior to sanction in others (or prohibit, or encourage).

[i_am_i]

I've read a lot of your posts and I find them very impressive. I'm no intellectual so what I say will probably seem rather simplistic, but here goes.

To me, morality was very much something that I had to learn. There was a time when I just didn't give a damn and I did some bad things to myself and to others.

Funnily enough it was after I became convinced that God is made-up that I began to see what "doing right" meant, what it meant to me. It had very much to do with my own pleasure, with what made me feel good about myself. I started looking back at things I'd done in the past and that made me feel bad about myself, see? And I learned from that.

Now it makes me feel good to smile at strangers, to be honest, to respect other people and feel happy for their achievements, to be attentive to my wife and my mother, to always be true to myself. Being true to myself makes me feel good about myself, and it makes me feel good to make others feel good.

To me, it's right for me to give free music lessons to my next-door-neighbor's son. It's not written anywhere that this is the right thing to do, it just feels right to me and it's no sacrifice on my part at all, because I enjoy it very much.

So it's all about feeling good, really. Pretty simple, I guess.

I realize that this is all subjective and that it doesn't add up to much of a philosphy that could be applied to humanity in general. I am, however, convinced that morality is largely subjective, that the very idea of morality is open to all sorts of interpretation.

[The Black Jester]

I've read a lot of your posts and I find them very impressive.

I really appreciate your kind words, thank you.

I'm no intellectual...

Nor am I - honestly, I don't have the cred.  I haven't decided whether or not it's something to aspire to, or even something that can be aspired to by an average joe like myself.  I do like to read, however, and to think (as far as I am able with my given abilities and my current level of training) - surely just like everyone here.  But I'm off topic (again  )...

I definitely feel like I had to learn "moral" behavior.  Like you, I've done many things, to myself and others, that I regret.  It seems like what you're describing is a kind of "honorable selfishness," to which I can definitely relate.  I had to learn to enjoy behavior beneficial to both myself and others.  But what happens when the two come in conflict (the self and others)?

I just have to wonder - and Ihateusernames has a point in the other thread - just because we like something doesn't necessarily mean it has intrinsic value.  Psychopaths, well some psychopaths anyway, enjoy dominating others, have little or no empathy, and thereby have no compunction against causing harm, especially if it serves their ends.  If what pleases you is good, by what measure is their behavior wrong?  I desperately want the behavior of psychopaths to be intrinsically wrong, but what standard can we offer that makes it so?  My emotional revulsion would hardly suffice.

I suppose another question might be, does it matter whether or not, "objectively," their behavior is wrong?  Most will want to protect themselves against such individuals, will take action to do so, and I can see no reason why that behavior would be wrong either.  Does that mean that it's merely the will of the stronger group that, in the end, counts?  That's a little disturbing to me as well.

I'm reading a little on game theory, and it seems to bear on this issue - that there are practical reasons to engage in mutual protection, to have concern for others, to be generous to a point and to refrain from harming other humans, wherever possible, to be honest and forthright in one's dealings.  In short, to engage in behavior typically described as moral.  But I don't see how the contemplation of practical consequences in any way imparts intrinsic "goodness" to a thing.  What do others think?