Morality and reasoned justification are incompatable

[Stevil]

As I understand it, the point of the Lemon Law is to serve as a sort of rule of thumb to try to ensure that the laws that are being passed are not being passed solely on the basis of religion; they have to hold a non-religious function.  For example, a law proposed by Jews and Muslims to outlaw pork would fail the Lemon test.  That's why I thought you would approve of some sort of Lemon-esque law that asks that the only laws that be passed are the ones needed to help society function (as opposed to based on religion or based on personal values.)

Ahhh, yes, most definitely agree.

[Stevil]

Interestingly I have just found a web article that makes a distinction on the various type of moral relativism some of which we have discussed in this thread.

All of the below are suggested as sub categories of moral relativism
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/ethics.html

conventionalism
This says that what we call morality is really a matter of our cultural or social norms

prescriptivism
looks at morality more in terms of power within a society.  What we call right and wrong are essentially prescriptions as to what we want others to do

emotivism
what we call good and bad are just labels for certain emotional responses we have to certain acts

moral skepticism
would say that we never truly know what is good or bad

moral nihilism (a.k.a. amoralism)
there simply is no such thing as good and bad, that those words are just misleading labels


So I guess when I am arguing for moral nihilism, I am being more specific and when you argue for moral relativism you are being more general. But it seems moral nihilism could simply be a form of moral relativism (even though it seems incompatible because moral relativism is based on morals which moral nihilism denies the existence of. But essentially when we get to this level of distinction it could come down to a semantic debate about what is meant by the word "moral")

[Asmodean]

3. My interests do not demand acting against the law or acts of violence against others. What do I have to achieve by either that I want and that is worth the trouble?

You find a shiny new Ferrari (an Enzo), with the keys in it and a letter that states the owner has become religion and has decided to give up all earthly possessions, if you want the car please feel free to take her, enjoy.


What would you do?

A Ferrari? I'd walk right past it and not give it a second thought.

[Stevil]

A Ferrari? I'd walk right past it and not give it a second thought.

Even if you could immediately sell it for half a million dollars?

Hmm, your making this hard.

[Asmodean]

A Ferrari? I'd walk right past it and not give it a second thought.

Even if you could immediately sell it for half a million dollars?

Hmm, your making this hard.

Well, I have a car. It's not new, nor is it very fast or very powerful, but I don't want another. When I NEED another, that will be a different matter, but a Ferrari..? No thanks.

As for immediately selling the damned thing... Not really, since even though "cheap" for an Enzo, I'd have to find a buyer willing to dump that much money in a car who actually wants it.

[xSilverPhinx]

I would take it, but I wouldn't keep it. I would sell it for whatever, even if I get 10% of it's worth I've profited. Though of course it would be better to sell it for what it's worth.

Insurance costs for such a car must be sky-high.

Point being, if someone was giving it away, I would take it. I don't see anything wrong with that scenario.

[Asmodean]

Point being, if someone was giving it away, I would take it. I don't see anything wrong with that scenario.

There is nothing wrong with that - if you want it and can has it, then why not?

[Stevil]

I love Kevin Crady's thinking and writing style.

Playing god

What is it that makes Christians so viscerally afraid of atheism?  Why are they so quick to cry that atheism must inherently lead to savagery?

Because, Christians do not beleive in morality at all.  To Christians, the only reason not to run amok raping and pillaging is because the King says you can't, and he will punish you severely for it after you die.  No King = no constraints on brutality.  For Christians then, there is no morality, only legality.  They hold this theory consistently, as is apparent whenever anyone questions the morality of God.

"God is not limited to human moral understanding."
"God is our Creator.  He is entitled to kill humans.  It is his sovereign right as our Creator."
"Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?"

Whenever atheists bring up any of the moral atrocities in the Bible, Christians routinely exempt God from any moral standard whatsoever.  This is only a natural consequence of their concept of "morality."  God has no "higher power" to tell him what to do.  No one will punish him, and no one can, because he has all the power.  Relative to God, atheism is true.  For him, there is no God.  Having no law he is subject to, God is free to commit any atrocity whatsoever, or command his servants to do it in his name.  God can do no wrong because for him, there is no morality.  As long as its him doing it, any act is "holy" or "righteous."

Think about it.

What do we mean when we use the phrase "playing God?"

If a medical researcher discovers a cure for some horrific illness, we do not say she is "playing God."

If an aid worker lives in primitive conditions and works tirelessly to help poor people in developing countries, we do not say he is "playing God."

If a soldier throws himself on a hand grenade to save his buddies, we do not say he is "playing God."

No, we reserve that phrase only for frightening or evil acts done by a person who feels entitled to lord over other people's lives or over nature in some malevolent way, with no moral or legal accountability.  When Dr. Mengele stood at the gates of Auschwitz arbitrarily deciding who would die, and who would be subjected to his inhuman experiments, that is what we mean by "playing God."

Why is this so?  Because the Bible clearly portrays God acting in exactly that manner.  See the ninth chapter of Romans.  It's spelled out quite clearly.  Why are Christians so afraid of atheism?

Because they're afraid we will act like God.

[xSilverPhinx]

Very provocative.

This whole god and morality buisness, god just looks too much like Maquiavelli's description of "The Prince". A ruler who is not morally accountable because morality and efficient rulership are incompatible.

I always thought that anybody who says or thinks that they need religion to keep them from doing atrocities should steer very clear away from those I want to protect.

[Ali]

That article was awesome.

[pytheas]

conventionalism
This says that what we call morality is really a matter of our cultural or social norms

emotivism
what we call good and bad are just labels for certain emotional responses we have to certain acts

moral skepticism
would say that we never truly know what is good or bad

moral nihilism (a.k.a. amoralism)
there simply is no such thing as good and bad, that those words are just misleading labels

based on neuroanatomical data, psychological tests and an interesting book called "character strenghts and virtues" I am convinced that morals is a mix of conventionalism together with emotivism. it is genetically prescribed (behavioural genetics) and universal, as far as human go, since if you have the normal nerve structure, when pinched, everybody pains similarly

Now all this learned / springing-from-within emotional labeling can be tested, challenged and suspended by intellect, reasoning and egoic intention moral skepticism

so far so good.
But morals as a function and derivative of socialising of a social animal
in one is unaware of, then one was not social, asocial, not exposed, hole-in the mountain life
if one is indifferent towards, then one became dissocial , not participating, not part of, maybe affective disorder
if one is against, does not recognise, than one is reactive, against a perceived set, an oppressive example. maybe a misfit, maybe unlucky, in a wrong place with the wrong people

a parameter of happiness needs the training, the cultivation of wisdom: aligning the within emotional responses (having therefore a representative and well-matched to society autoresponse set) with the conscious choices and self-respecting/self-imposed reasoned rules justifications and guidelines

hard to do, no doubt, but not impossible

that is my take on this

[En_Route]

In the absence of God, you would say that the concept of a source of right and wrong in any absolute, objective sense seem redundant.
But introducing God doesn't really resolve the issue. Christians cannot believe that God would want them to do wrong; so if he says something is wrong it must because it is wrong not merely because he says so. God knows everything so he is deemed to be 100% reliable plus he is a bona fide regular sort of God who is infinitely just so he would not deliberately mislead mankind. Accordinglyhis role becomes declarative, leaving us still grasping for the reasons why things are right or wrong.

[En_Route]

  Like, if right and wrong are so easy for me to spot, does that not mean that there really is a right and wrong?

No, all it means is that you think right and wrong are easy to spot.

[Reprobate]

Not at all, I don't equate morals with any law or moral lawgivers. It has nothing to do with arguments from authority in fact.

Rather, it's just as you described it, you say you don't lie because you would like to be trusted. Being trusted and trusting others is good for a group because it leads to higher levels of cooperation among other things.

Morality, as I see it, is the unwritten and generally accepted ideas that optimise functioning and cohesion in a society. You don't lie partly because you want others to see you as trustworthy choose to trust you.

I see morals as an evolutionary benefit. Man is a social animal, consideration and trust make the cooperation that was necessary for our ancestors to survive more likely. I imagine that people who could not be trusted by other members of their tribe, clan, whatever, and/ or were considered lacking in morals would have been ostracized and in extreme cases exiled. That would have made survival difficult and reproduction unlikely.

Morality becomes subjective in cases where killing members of your own group is detrimental to the group, killing members of rival groups to protect yours or to acquire territory is beneficial. There are many other examples of subjective morality, but in my opinion that one would have been the most obvious to paleolithic/ neolithic humans.

[En_Route]

Not at all, I don't equate morals with any law or moral lawgivers. It has nothing to do with arguments from authority in fact.

Rather, it's just as you described it, you say you don't lie because you would like to be trusted. Being trusted and trusting others is good for a group because it leads to higher levels of cooperation among other things.

Morality, as I see it, is the unwritten and generally accepted ideas that optimise functioning and cohesion in a society. You don't lie partly because you want others to see you as trustworthy choose to trust you.

I see morals as an evolutionary benefit. Man is a social animal, consideration and trust make the cooperation that was necessary for our ancestors to survive more likely. I imagine that people who could not be trusted by other members of their tribe, clan, whatever, and/ or were considered lacking in morals would have been ostracized and in extreme cases exiled. That would have made survival difficult and reproduction unlikely.

Morality becomes subjective in cases where killing members of your own group is detrimental to the group, killing members of rival groups to protect yours or to acquire territory is beneficial. There are many other examples of subjective morality, but in my opinion that one would have been the most obvious to paleolithic/ neolithic humans.

I agree we are  probably hard-wired to feel an innate repugnance at certain forms of behaviour- so-called "moral universals" (though of course not derived from a coherent set of moral beliefs per se). However social conditioning can operate to nullify -or extend- these instincts.The idea of animal rights would have been risible in Western Society not so long ago.Probably only an affluent society can afford such extended benevolence.Conversely,in societies which have been infected  and warped by malign ideologies,there are no horrors  which we are not capable of inflicting on each other.