You Lost One - Atheist Converts

[Stevil]

My values are centered around number one. My morals are centered around one-of-many.

Do you see that extending your personal wants onto others/society (golden rule), you are expressing a desire for a society which accommodates you?
And also you must see that there is much for you to gain by behaving amicably within society. e.g. society doesn't see you as a threat and treats you accordingly. You are behaving in your best interests irregardless whether you have a unfulfilled desire to kill someone slowly.

I have much desire to eat chocolate but instead I go for a run!

[Asmodean]

Do you see that extending your personal wants onto others/society (golden rule), you are expressing a desire for a society which accommodates you?

Depends. The way this question is worded, the answer is yes.

I'm sorry, but if you are trying to make a point, I can not see it.

[Stevil]

Do you see that extending your personal wants onto others/society (golden rule), you are expressing a desire for a society which accommodates you?

Depends. The way this question is worded, the answer is yes.

I'm sorry, but if you are trying to make a point, I can not see it.

That which you call morality is quite different to that which theists call morality.
I feel both of you like the "Moral" label. Let's face it, most people like the "Moral" label. People want to believe that they are Good as opposed to Evil.
But I feel they dress up other things in the cloak of "Morality"
For theists, it is god's law that is called morality. Us atheists wouldn't call any law a morality. For example the government defined law is law, it isn't morality, so why would god's law be any different?
For atheists it is personal opinion or personal preference. Is this really morality? I prefer Lindt Chilli chocolate to Cadbury milk chocolate, this obviously isn't a moral statement. Kirk Cameron thinks it is wrong for people to have gay sex, is this a moral statement or simply a personal preference? In a way it is both. Kirk is a theist, he believes in objective morality, he believes his god's law is morality and that it applies to all humans. He is philosophically consistent when he makes a bold claim that it is wrong for people to have gay sex.
If an Atheist (whom believes morality is subjective, thus personal opinion) makes this statement then they cannot apply their claim universally. At best they can only say "I think it is wrong for people to have gay sex". If they make the public claim that "gay sex is immoral" then they are being philosophically inconsistent. They are applying their own person opinion universally onto everyone even though they claim that their morality is subjective and hence only applies to themselves.
For the Atheist that believes in subjective morality words such as moral or immoral are misleading, really they simply mean that they personally are of the opinion that something is wrong but they understand that there are no universal truths. So why make the claim? The audience whom hears your claim will assume you are making a universal claim, thus if they disagree with it, you will have an argument on your hands. If you make a personal statement then people are far less likely to argue the point with you. If you realise that your "morality" is only personal, then you won't look to implement it in law and hence force it on others, unless you have an alteria motive, e.g. your own survival.

If we get back to the Good vs Evil argument, assuming that you want to behave morally because you want to be Good.
What does Good even mean? There are no consequences for being Good rather than Evil. The cosmos doesn't care.
Do you think you choose to be Good? Do you believe in freewill? Do you think it is your purpose to be Good, to be an agent of Morality?

[Asmodean]

Clarifying, that. Thanks

What I was saying was pretty much that my values are, to put it simply, that which makes me happy. My morals, on the other hand (still rather simplified), are that which makes the society happy with me.

Back to my illustrative examples: Do I value a random human life? No. However, do I acknowledge that human's right to have and keep that life? Again, yes.

The first is a personal standpoint. The second is a moral one. In my case, at least, in the event of a conflict of interest, the second will usually - if not nearly always - trump the first.

[Stevil]

Clarifying, that. Thanks

What I was saying was pretty much that my values are, to put it simply, that which makes me happy. My morals, on the other hand (still rather simplified), are that which makes the society happy with me.

Yeah, and having society happy with you, makes you happy. It gets quite circular.

I understand why people think of morality as doing something that is for the benefit of others rather than the self. But I do think that if you dig deep enough, analytically enough, you will see that it benefits the self. That you don't have to believe in Good, Evil or Morality to justify being a fine upstanding citizen.

The reason I am so opposed to the morality concept is that it is used to hide the why or the reasoning behind it. It is used by people to push their values onto others, it is used to oppress (unintentionally).

If we are clear and specific with our words and definitions then we can successfully separate out personal opinion from necessary laws of society from moral beliefs. We can find common ground between theists and atheists. If we agree on necessary laws of society with regards to safe and stable cohabitation and allow people to choose to behave morally, then there is grounds to be tolerant of each other and to live in an unoppressive inclusive society. For the theists they ought to be content believing their god will make the final judgement on morality and that their god's justice will be perfect. There is no need to implement morality into our societies law.
AD is a good example of this. He believes it is a sin to perform gay sex, but he does not think we should put that into law, he thinks people should have the freedom to make that choice. (Please correct me if I am wrong AD)

[Stevil]

Back to my illustrative examples: Do I value a random human life? No. However, do I acknowledge that human's right to have and keep that life? Again, yes.

The first is a personal standpoint. The second is a moral one. In my case, at least, in the event of a conflict of interest, the second will usually - if not nearly always - trump the first.

If you live in a society that doesn't value human life, then your own life is in danger. For survival, you desire a society that values human life.

[Recusant]

There are of course atheists who think that it's possible to show a naturalistic basis for an objective morality. Sam Harris is one, and Daniel Fincke, a blogger I came across recently, is another. Interestingly, it was in looking at responses to Libresco's conversion that I found Fincke; in "How Foolish Atheists Convinced The Atheist Blogger Leah Libresco That Catholic Philosophy Was Rationally Superior To Atheism", he's practically jumping up and down in his pique over the assumption that atheists inevitably posit a subjective basis for morality. You may find some of his articles worthwhile, Stevil. Though I haven't read it yet, I'm thinking that "In Which I Answer Leah Libresco's Moral Philosophy Concerns So You Don't Become A Catholic Too" should be interesting.  

[Stevil]

It is amazing how much exposure this one person's conversion is getting.

[Asmodean]

If you live in a society that doesn't value human life, then your own life is in danger. For survival, you desire a society that values human life.

...Assuming of course that my own survival is a high priority. A safe enough assumption in most cases, but still.

I do not desire a society that values human life. I live in one, and am not nearly discontent enough to work to change it. It is a crucial point of difference that I have been half-heartedly attempting to illustrate, but you could not or would not pick up on.

[Stevil]

...Assuming of course that my own survival is a high priority. A safe enough assumption in most cases, but still.

LOL

I do not desire a society that values human life. I live in one, and am not nearly discontent enough to work to change it. It is a crucial point of difference that I have been half-heartedly attempting to illustrate, but you could not or would not pick up on.

I understand that you are making a claim to have a desire to kill people, albeit slowly.

But I think you are disregarding the consequences of such a society. What if other people want to kill you, slowly?

[Asmodean]

I understand that you are making a claim to have a desire to kill people, albeit slowly.

And I do. Not the point, however.

But I think you are disregarding the consequences of such a society. What if other people want to kill you, slowly?

Then their morals apparently trump their personal wishes, like they do in my case, because I'm sort of... Alive.

[Stevil]

But I think you are disregarding the consequences of such a society. What if other people want to kill you, slowly?

Then their morals apparently trump their personal wishes, like they do in my case, because I'm sort of... Alive.

Their morals or their desire to survive?

There are real consequences to trying to kill someone, that person may fight back, their loved ones might fight back, society might fight back, government might put them in prison or give them the death sentence.

As a society we have deemed that it is unsafe (and hence undesired) to let people go around killing each other. We have mutually given up our right to kill in favour of our right not to be killed. This doesn't have to be considered a moral decision, it could be considered a mutual survival preference supported by law.

I think it is fascinating to consider shows like Survivor or what happens in war time. Normal rules don't apply, because society is different, people behave differently because the game is different. It is not that morality has changed, I presume the concept of morality doesn't change.
In survivor people make alliances, they lie, deceive, betray, in order to be the last person standing. At the end of the game half the people hate them, but they end up with the money anyways (as long as they are less hated than the other survivor). They know the goal and their purpose during the game, they know the society is only temporary, they know it doesn't matter in the end that they have lost everyone's trust.
These are the consequences, if you behaved that way in your own long term society. If people dislike and distrust you then your life will be limited, no friends, no business partners, no loans, no customers.

You might think you do the "right" thing because you are a "good" person, but I think there is much more to it than that. That, sounds like a fairytale. This mentality is very much inbred into us via movies, books, comic books. Good triumphing over Evil. I think this black and white mentality is a major source of conflict and wars.

[Sweetdeath]

It takes a lot more to make me feel attacked - an actual attack, for instance. You have somewhat of a reputation with me for putting words in people's mouths, however.

Put some words in my mouth now, Asmo, but be gentle.  It's my first time.

Bastard! That nearly cost me a keyboard!!!

Oh, you know you loved it. 

[Sandra Craft]

If you care to indulge me,

Please tell me what you think the difference is between personal values (personal opinion) and morality?

Depends on what kind of morality we're discussing.  None if it's my personal morality. 

Also please tell me if (and why) you think you are being philosophically consistent when you make a public claim to something being immoral. How this is more than just a personal statement as to you personally feeling such and such is "wrong".

It isn't any more than a personal statement.  Why would it be?

[Stevil]

Depends on what kind of morality we're discussing.  None if it's my personal morality. 

OK, so you have dressed up your own personal opinion as "morality". You could easily interchange between "That isn't aligned with my personal values" or "That is immoral".
Do you think the second option could be ambiguous to your audience?, Asmodean has clearly stated he thinks there is a difference between one's personal values and morality, I would assume theists think that there is a difference although I presume they try hard to align them.
Do you think with the second option that your audience might think that you are telling them what they ought to believe as right and wrong?
e.g. if you say such and such is immoral, would your audience sometimes think that you are asserting a "universal truth" onto them as if your perception of morality ought to apply to them?

It isn't any more than a personal statement.  Why would it be?

So, if a government makes laws based on morality or ethics, stating that prostitution is illegal because it is immoral. Or if they state that homosexual marriage is illegal because it is immoral. Or if they make stem cell research illegal because it is immoral.
What would your response be?
a) Whose morality are we referring to?
b) No, these activities are not immoral.
c) I don't want laws based on the law maker's moral beliefs, I want laws based on specific disclosed goals e.g. safe and stable society.

Can you see how (if morality is just another name for personal opinion) morality is not a very good basis for a leader making decisions on behalf of others, or for a community of people to discuss an issue and try to come to a collective compromise. For the community you would end up with a numbers game where the majority always rule, thus in a Christian community, homosexuality would be outlawed because it is collectively deemed as immoral.