Morality?

[Alsharad]

Given that there is no God, how does one go about justifying morality? Does morality exist at all? What determines right and wrong? Is there anything that should or should not be done? Are there any immoral actions? If there are, how do we know that they are immoral?

I have heard a few different answers, but I am curious as to what this forum will say.

[FreakyJoeMan]

Well, my feelings are that there are no universal moral paradigms. Even in different parts of the world, a "moral dillemma" would be handled in different ways, probably according to that area's culture. It's my beleif that "morals" evolved to strengthen and stabalize the social connection between groups of humans, and thereby continue the propogation of the species. But, that's just me.

[Peace]

Given that there is no God, how does one go about justifying morality? Does morality exist at all? What determines right and wrong? Is there anything that should or should not be done? Are there any immoral actions? If there are, how do we know that they are immoral?

I have heard a few different answers, but I am curious as to what this forum will say.
Morals are determined by the society you live in.

[Diamond Gord]

Morals are simply having the intellegence and compassion to realise that your actions can have a negative on others and altering your actions to avoid this.

[Alsharad]

Interesting responses.

FreakyJoeMan:
So you think that morality is kind of a social contract between a bunch of people to keep us from killing each other and therefore are "moral" because it is in our own best interest? I am just trying to clarify your position. It sounds like you are (or would be) a proponent of social contract theory.

Peace:
Morals are determined by the society you live in.
I can see that. Different societies have different values and who are we to judge them on their values, right? Unfortunately, that leaves us with some pretty big dilemmas.
1. We cannot judge other societies' practices. Seems okay at first (i.e. hey, Eskimoes can have whatever funerary practices they want... who are we to judge?) But suppose a society decided to wage war on a neighbor for the purposes of taking slaves. Or suppose a society was violently anti-Semetic and its leaders decided to wipe out the Jews. If morality is determined by society, then we cannot even say that a tolerant society is better than a racist one because this would imply some sort of transcultural standard. However, failing to condemn practices like slavery and racism (and genocide) seems unenlightened. In fact, those practices seem wrong whenever they occur. But if morality is determined by the society, then we are really in no place to judge them at all.
2. We would be able to determine the rightness or wrongness of our actions just by consulting our own society's standard. Suppose a resident of South Africa in 1975 wanted to know if apatheid was morally correct. All he would have to do is ask if the policy met with the society's moral code. In short, if society determines our moral code, then we cannot criticize our own moral code. Our society's moral code could therefore not be reformed (since there would be no way to criticize our own society's code).
3. How can a cuture progress morally? Take women's rights. Most of us believe that we have a better society because women have far more rights than they used to in the 1800s and 1900s. However, if the society decides what is moral, then all we have now is a different society then we did in the past. It is neither better nor worse than any other society in the past because we cannot say that a society which opresses women is any worse than one that doesn't. If our society used to opress women but now it doesn't, we cannot say we have progressed. All we have done is changed. We have not discarded a practice for a better one, just a different one.

How should we go about dealing with these difficulties?

Diamond Gord:
Morals are simply having the intellegence and compassion to realise that your actions can have a negative on others and altering your actions to avoid this.
So is it okay to punish someone for bringing pain and suffering to someone else? Say a thief robs a convenience store and takes the owners payroll so that none of the employees can be paid (therefore being unable to buy food or pay bills or rent). When the thief is caught he asks for mercy. Punishing the theif would have a definite negative affect on him. Should we just be compassionate and alter our actions to avoid the negative effect? Should we avoid punishing him? Can you justify pushing someone if morality is simply doing whatever it takes to avoid having a negative impact on someone else?

[Jatom]

FreakyJoeMan,

You say that “morals evolved to strengthen and stabalize the social connection between groups of humans”, that is, they evolved for the good of society. But what is “good” and how can it be accounted for. These “evolving” morals are moving with a purpose, a universal purpose, and as such, eventhough the “morals” in your system are not absolute, it seems like the principle by which they evolve is.

[FreakyJoeMan]

I beleive that, originally, morals evolved to solidify the bonds that members of a human group had. To make it less likely for members of that group to kill one another. We, as social animals, function better in groups, and making the ties between humans stronger is, at the very bottom of it, good for the continuation of the species. Sorry I couldn't put it more eloquently. It's kind of a hard concept for me to put into words. And about the other post, "social contract"? Is that like social darwinism? 'Cause if it is, then it's bullshit.

[Jatom]

Ok , I still have some questions for you JoeMan. You say that you “beleive that, originally, morals evolved to solidify the bonds that members of a human group had. To make it less likely for members of that group to kill one another.” Don't you see this as a purpose? Morality originally evolved to solidify bonds and prevent others from killing one another. Ultimately than killing is seen as bad for the society, while solidification of certain bonds as good. So when Bog killed Booga, it was generally recognized as having a bad effect on the group and killing became wrong, while maybe sharing became right. But we're still left with the first principle of Good and Bad that is unaccounted for in the evolution of morals. How is it decided that killing is wrong, or has a negative effect without first having some knowledge of what a negative or bad effect is? And likewise how is decided that something is good for the society without first having a working definition of what “good” even is? In the end JoeMan, it appears to me, that we're left with an evolution system that consistently moves toward a single goal, for the “good”--an absolute principle that is left unaccounted for. ...just some thoughts from Jatom.

[Alsharad]

No, FreakyJoeMan, it is not social darwinism.

A philosopher named Hobbes came up with the idea that originally humanity was in what he called the State of Nature. Basically, it was every man for himself. There was no moral code. No actions were moral or immoral any more than the actions of an animal. All human actions were non-moral (including theft, murder, rape, etc.). Well, a group of people got together and decided that they didn't want to live that way anymore so they ceded some of their authority to a sovereign. They gave up their freedom to take whatever they wanted in exchange for the protection that the sovereign provided. He gave them protection from outsiders and from fellow citizens in exchange for power.

And thus the social contract was born.

The above is largely allegorical, but it is an illustration of how the social contract works. The community agrees not to take certain actions and yeilds some of their rights to the sovereign. The sovereign agrees to make sure that the community members are safe from those break the constraints of the contract.

Hobbes theory takes into account morality, law, social interaction... it is pretty well rounded. The above is a very crude, shot-from-the-hip answer, but it gives you the very basics of the theory.

Here is a better summation:

The definitive statement of social contract theory is found in Chapters 13 through 15 of Hobbes's Leviathan. Briefly, Hobbes argues that the original state of nature is a condition of constant war, which rational and self-motivated people would want to end. These people, then, will establish fundamental moral laws to preserve peace. The foundation of Hobbes's theory is the view that humans are psychologically motivated by only selfish interests. Hobbes argued that, for purely selfish reasons, the agent is better off living in a world with moral rules than one without moral rules. Without moral rules, we are subject to the whims of other people's selfish interests. Our property, our families, and even our lives are at continual risk. Selfishness alone will therefore motivate each agent to adopt a basic set of rules which will allow for a civilized community. Not surprisingly, these rules would include prohibitions against lying, stealing and killing. However, these rules will ensure safety for each agent only if the rules are enforced. As selfish creatures, each of us would plunder our neighbors' property once their guards were down. Each agent would then be at risk from his neighbor. Therefore, for selfish reasons alone, we devise a means of enforcing these rules: we create a policing agency which punishes us if we violate these rules. Like rule-utilitarianism, Hobbes's social contract theory is a three-tiered moral system. Particular acts, such as stealing my neighbor's lawn furniture, are w rong since they violate the rule against stealing. The rule against stealing, in turn, is morally binding since it is in my interests to live in a world which enforces this rule.

You can find the full article here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/soc-cont.htm

[Razorofoccam]

The question of morals can take on a whole new aspect when a small variable is inserted.

The above posts address the perenial question of moral values in humanity..

Occam suggests many of these questions can be answered by the introduction of a variable that just about all agree. exists...
But none have any information on.

Other races..

Who will stand up and say we are the only race that has/is/or will exist?
A hypothetical.
***
The 'Kharm'.. A race on the [to us] figid world of 'kha' . The second world of
the star Epsilon Eridani {human name]
Grew to social complexity much as we did.. But are by nature [theirs]
Far mor pragmatic. And less imaginative. it took them 50 thousand years to
reach our 1800's level of technology.
But once they had it... All parameters dissolve.
Their pragamatism was a boon to technological developement.
They 'bloomed' in a few centuries to a star travelling species.

Now..They, in the 'rational revolution'. Came appon the philosophy of nature and survival of the fittest and made THAT. Their morality.

Thus their morality is.
Any thing or act that aids the Kharm race. Is good.
Any that does not..Is bad.
They have racial egos over individual
Their greatest divergence to us.

A genetically defective child..Is destroyed.
One who proposes profit over the good of all, is destroyed.
A tyrant , if it would benefit the kharm..is welcomed.
If it would not, destroyed.

And when a Kharm ship drops into our atmoshphere....
They start shooting.
Why ?
Because the existence of humans will constrain the growth of the kharm race.
Thus it is morally correct to kill ALL humans.
***

Morals..
It is a word that CANNOT be an absolute.
It is a function of a 'group of beings who opperate by a moral code'
It is an agreed interpretation/opinion.

Occam tends to the standard.
"do unto others as you would have then do unto you"
overlaid with a rational analysis of the pointlessness of waste.
The benefit of continuation of viable structures.
And the willingness to kill anyone who threatens the ones he loves and cares for..

:)

Occam

[veinglory]

What does God have to do with morality. I think starting from that weird assumoption is a problem. If anything morality stems from empathy which is felt as strongly by atheists as by monotheists.

[Alsharad]

RazorofOccam:
The above posts address the perenial question of moral values in humanity..

Occam suggests many of these questions can be answered by the introduction of a variable that just about all agree. exists...
But none have any information on.

Other races..

I am not sure that adding other races is relevant. Why? Because if there are absolute morals, then the other races would be bound by them. If not, well, then they would be in the same boat we would be. I could just as easily say that instead of an alien race, we find a group of people that have never been influenced or contacted by any other portion of humanity. If you disqualify that scenario because they are humans, then you are begging the question (by assuming that morality is based on culture or race).

Also, you ended your illustration with the statement "Thus it is morally correct to kill ALL humans." My response is: Is that wrong? Is that morally untenable? You ended your illustration, but did not draw a conclusion based on it.

Again, I do not see how the addition of other races impacts the question at all. All it would do is illustrate that other races might have different moral codes.

It is a word that CANNOT be an absolute.
It is a function of a 'group of beings who opperate by a moral code'
It is an agreed interpretation/opinion.
Why can it not be absolute? And how is it agreed upon interpretation/opinon? Agreed upon by how many people? 100 million, 50 thousand, 200, 10, 5? How many people does it take to agree upon a moral code? And what about issues that are in dispute? Is homosexuality immoral? Abortion? Excision? Capital punishment? There is not a lot of agreement on these issues. Does that make them non-moral until the debate is settled? How does this work?

Veinglory:
What does God have to do with morality. I think starting from that weird assumoption is a problem. If anything morality stems from empathy which is felt as strongly by atheists as by monotheists.
Well, if you go with conceptions of God that are found in Islam, Judaeism, Christianity, God is the author of moral law. Right and goodness are aspects of God's character and as God's character is eternal and non-mutable those same moral standards are also eternal an non-mutable which makes them absolute. If you go with other dieties like some of the Pantheons then the Gods still partially determined what was right and wrong but what was right could be rather arbitrary.

Why do you think that morality stems from empathy? In my experience, only people who are moral are empathetic. So the question for you is, do morals stem from empathy or does empathy stem from morality (i.e. it is right and good for us to care about other beings)? How do you justify your statement?

[veinglory]

>>>Well, if you go with conceptions of God that are found in Islam, Judaeism, Christianity, God is the author of moral law.

Yes, but as this is an atheists forum the question is akin to asking a lesbian how they have sex without a man, or a fish how it breathes without air -- it just doesn't make much sense. How is there morality without God? Why would there not be? Obviously people were moral before monotheism, in the absence of monotheism etc. the first thing the question begs is 'why assume atheist would be any less moral than monotheists?' To which the only answer I can find is that the question implies a prejudice against atheists. (c.f. As an atheist what do you identify as the source of your morality/moral code?)

>>>Why do you think that morality stems from empathy? In my experience, only people who are moral are empathetic.

The rules of morality function to stop us from hurting each other and make our communities a success (i.e. acting for the common good). To my mind empathy and morality are the same thing, one is the emotional aspect and the other cognitive. One does not cause the other any more than one side of a coin causes the other.

[Razorofoccam]

RazorofOccam:

1*
I am not sure that adding other races is relevant. Why? Because if there are absolute morals, then the other races would be bound by them. If not, well, then they would be in the same boat we would be. I could just as easily say that instead of an alien race, we find a group of people that have never been influenced or contacted by any other portion of humanity. If you disqualify that scenario because they are humans, then you are begging the question (by assuming that morality is based on culture or race).

Also, you ended your illustration with the statement "Thus it is morally correct to kill ALL humans." My response is: Is that wrong? Is that morally untenable? You ended your illustration, but did not draw a conclusion based on it.

Again, I do not see how the addition of other races impacts the question at all. All it would do is illustrate that other races might have different moral codes.

2*
Why can it not be absolute? And how is it agreed upon interpretation/opinon? Agreed upon by how many people? 100 million, 50 thousand, 200, 10, 5? How many people does it take to agree upon a moral code? And what about issues that are in dispute? Is homosexuality immoral? Abortion? Excision? Capital punishment? There is not a lot of agreement on these issues. Does that make them non-moral until the debate is settled? How does this work?
Alsharad

The 'other races' is introduced specifically to show that there can be no absolute moral code.
It answers your comments in 2* above.
It cannot be an absolute because they are applicable to all reality.
And 'supposedly enforced throughout.'
Occam sees no enforcement of moral codes in reality except by humans.
Not by any objective law.
And this is before we even start to talk about other 'racial' standards of moral behavior.
Occam sees only one standard in reality that might be called absolute moral
code...
'Survival of the fittest'
In many ways it is applicable to our world.
But compassion and love 'screw the pooch' on this one.

Our higher qualities. Render the survival of the fittest code moot.
it is the ultimate pragmatic code...
But hardly one 99% of humanity would wish to live under.

It still applies. But now we use social structures to replace most of its functions.
=====

"How many people does it take to agree upon a moral code?"

2

=====
"Is homosexuality immoral? Abortion? Excision? Capital punishment? There is not a lot of agreement on these issues. Does that make them non-moral until the debate is settled? How does this work?"

In order from your post
No
No [before higher brain functions activate...16 weeks?]
What is excision?
No

Immoral acts can only be judged from within the culture the individual is part of.
If occam kills a child .. He is a murderer and is put away, or shot..Rightly so.
If a newborn girl is dumped to die in the gutter in cultures that say this is
a norm. As in india and other places...It is morally acceptable[to that culture] but occam thinks it now is causing many problems as these countries integrate with the west. Western morality is setting the standards. Because our world is becomming a western world.
Why.
Technological power.
Nations want it... To get it they must be , at least to the media.
Morally acceptable within limmits.
Islam condones mutilation and death for crimes we consider trivial.
This, is what moral arguement is all about.
We westerners call some things 'islamic/mideastern' immoral
They call some things western.. immoral.
Who is right?
Both.
Is human life sacred? Only to 'some' humans.

If you wish to say it is... Then you must subscribe to occams morality.
Which says that each human life has potential that cannot replaced or emulated if it is destroyed. The potential of each human is VAST.
[once it actually can think ..thus the 16 weeks question. A babe is not a human untill it has a funtioning human brain]
And the right of a thinking being, to live...Is inherent.

And that having more than 2 children [to replace the parents]
IS A MORAL CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

If we dont start THINKING as a race.
We will die as one.

Occam

[Alsharad]

The 'other races' is introduced specifically to show that there can be no absolute moral code.How does it show that there is no absolute moral code? Because the races' moral codes are different? It seems your argument is this:

1. Different cultures have different moral codes.
2. Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are simply matters of opinion and opinions vary from culture to culture.

The problem is that the argument is unsound. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. It could be that there *is* objective truth in morality and that one of the cultures is simply mistaken. The problem is with the argument is that the premise deals with what people believe while the second deals with the way things actually are. There are numerous counter examples I could give, but I will give you two:

The ancient Greeks and Callatians had different views on funerary practices. The Greeks believed eating the dead was wrong; the Callatians believed it was right. Now, does it follow merely from the fact that they disagreed that there was no objective truth in the matter? No, it doesn't.

Some cultures believed that the earth was flat. Others did not. Does it follow that because they disagreed that there was/is no objective truth in geography? We would think it absud if someone actually proposed this argument.

Now, I am not saying (yet) that the conclusion is false. All I am pointing out is that this argument is not sound. If you think morality is based upon cultural views, you are going to have to use more than the fact that cultures disagree to prove it.

It cannot be an absolute because they are applicable to all reality.
And 'supposedly enforced throughout.'
Occam sees no enforcement of moral codes in reality except by humans.
Not by any objective law.
And this is before we even start to talk about other 'racial' standards of moral behavior.
Occam sees only one standard in reality that might be called absolute moral
code...
'Survival of the fittest'
In many ways it is applicable to our world.
But compassion and love 'screw the pooch' on this one.
So because you do not see moral codes enforced throughout the universe, then you conclude that they do not exist? Why should animals and non-humans be bound by moral law? Most of the moral philosophers agree that humans are set apart by the ability to reason abstractly. Such moral laws would be only applicable to those creatures capable of understanding them. To the best of our knowledge, that pretty much limits it to humans. If there was another race capable of abstract reasoning, then they to would be bound by this moral code. Note that I am not saying that "ignorance is an excuse." I am talking about the lack of cognitive ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

"How many people does it take to agree upon a moral code?"

2
So if my friend and I agree that theft is okay and we rob one hundred people who think theft is wrong, we still haven't done anything wrong (illegal maybe, but not immoral)? How did you draw the conclusion that it takes two? Is that the minimum number of people that it takes to agree on anything? Can I not be in agreement with myself (which would lower the number to one)?

What is excision?A pretty gruesome practice. In short, a woman's labia are cut off. This removes all pleasure from sex and can cause serious health issues. It is still practiced in some African tribes. It is a part of their respective tribal cultures.

Immoral acts can only be judged from within the culture the individual is part of.Please see the above for the problems with ascribing to the idead that because cultures have different beliefs, there is no objective moral truth.

If you wish to say it is... Then you must subscribe to occams morality.
No I don't. I can believe that human life is sacred for any number of reasons including that we are made in God's image. Right or wrong, I do not have to ascribe to "occams morality" in order to substantiate my beliefs.

And that having more than 2 children [to replace the parents]
IS A MORAL CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.How does that follow?

If we dont start THINKING as a race.
We will die as one.That is a nice sentiment, but ultimately unfounded I think. Can you give your reasoning for believing this?

I also wanted to re-post this, Occam, and get your resonses to it. There are some difficulties when you say that culture or society determines moral codes.

1. We cannot judge other societies' practices. Seems okay at first (i.e. hey, Eskimoes can have whatever funerary practices they want... who are we to judge?) But suppose a society decided to wage war on a neighbor for the purposes of taking slaves. Or suppose a society was violently anti-Semetic and its leaders decided to wipe out the Jews. If morality is determined by society, then we cannot even say that a tolerant society is better than a racist one because this would imply some sort of transcultural standard. However, failing to condemn practices like slavery and racism (and genocide) seems unenlightened. In fact, those practices seem wrong whenever they occur. But if morality is determined by the society, then we are really in no place to judge them at all.

2. We would be able to determine the rightness or wrongness of our actions just by consulting our own society's standard. Suppose a resident of South Africa in 1975 wanted to know if apatheid was morally correct. All he would have to do is ask if the policy met with the society's moral code. In short, if society determines our moral code, then we cannot criticize our own moral code. Our society's moral code could therefore not be reformed (since there would be no way to criticize our own society's code).

3. How can a cuture progress morally? Take women's rights. Most of us believe that we have a better society because women have far more rights than they used to in the 1800s and 1900s. However, if the society decides what is moral, then all we have now is a different society then we did in the past. It is neither better nor worse than any other society in the past because we cannot say that a society which opresses women is any worse than one that doesn't. If our society used to opress women but now it doesn't, we cannot say we have progressed. All we have done is changed. We have not discarded a practice for a better one, just a different one.

What are your responses to those difficulties?

[Jedi]

Given that there is no God, how does one go about justifying morality? Does morality exist at all? What determines right and wrong? Is there anything that should or should not be done? Are there any immoral actions? If there are, how do we know that they are immoral?

I have heard a few different answers, but I am curious as to what this forum will say.Hi Alsharad,

Well... in my opinion, if you take away God from morality, then morals are nothing but codes for us to survive in this world. We are a species that adapt to the changing environment. So, our "morals" change ensuring our survival.

If you look at it, our whole society shows "animalism". Sexual exploitation of women still continues- nowadays its in fashion. In the past, it was in confinement of women to the household and making women virtually servants to men. We still show animalism in many ways- through media - violent movies, fighting movies and what not.

So, morals are there for your survival. Your own personal morals appear according to the survival skills that you learned from your community and they change because we change.

One simple example of morals changing would be like the moral "I will not kill" . However, if you go to the wilderness and are being attacked by a bear - and if you then some how fight and kill the bear , then your morality will have another base- "thou shalt not kill- but its okay to defend yourself when you have to and that includes killing" . You pass that on to your offspring to ensure their survival.

[Mui]

I dont live with morals and "right" and "wrong"

[J_Lazarus]

Although I plead guilty to not having read every post here, I would like to add my two-bits anyhow.

1) Simply because society's view of morals has changed over time or between societies does not mean that an objective sort of ethical code does not exist. Consider how society's view of the law of gravity has changed in its level of understanding over time - yet of course no one would make the absurd claim that gravity is relative to the individual. And simply because I might deny gravity does not mean it does not objectively exist.

2) I would define morality as the "study of action". How we should and should not act.

Now, notice how every human being pursues what they perceive as their best interest. Everyone has their own self-interest at heart, what they believe is best for them (although it might not always be what is best for them, such as the woman who stays with her abusive husband).

Also, as human beings, it is recognized that we all have a certain heirarchy of values in common, which have been given the term "Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs", and is accepted in the field of psychology. These are:

Material needs such as needs for health and food: these values contribute directly to survival.

"Spiritual" needs such as needs for conceptual knowledge, self-esteem, education and art: these values are "spiritual" in the sense that they primarily pertain to consciousness, and contribute to survival by helping Reason to function properly.

Social needs such as needs for trade, communication, friendship and love: these values are social in that they occur only through interaction with others. Logically, their status as values is due to the fact that they contribute to the fulfillment of "spiritual" and "material" needs.

Political needs such as needs for freedom and objective law, which are needs concerning the organization of society. These provide the context for fulfilling our material, "spiritual" and social needs.

Because we all naturally wish to prosper and survive by our very instincts, and because these needs are necessary for that - I submit that it is in our best interest that we act in such a way that would bring us into the fulfillment of these values. Therefore, not only is it necessary that we follow these ourselves, but also that we respect others in a way that they too can pursue these needs - because not doing so would affect our pursual of these needs ourselves.

Murdering someone, for instance, is both bad for the person I would murder and for myself in two ways: 1) It puts those necessary values that I hold into danger because of the unnecessary chaos I would cause in murdering someone; and 2) Such chaos would directly endanger my very life, as the family members of the person I would have killed could decide to come after me.

This is the basic foundation of an objective morality.

Self-interest ---> heirarchy of values ---> necessary limitation of action for the gauranteed fulfillment of these needs.

This has been a rather crude presentation of the objectivist's theory of ethics, but I feel I get my point across well enough.

Keep in mind - self-interest does not deny nor undermine the existence of empathy or love. The existence of these put other people and things at a high value for us individually, and without them our lives would be miserable - hence why we would readily sacrifice ourselves for our children, wives, husbands, or parents, etc.

Also keep in mind that the employment of reason and logical process is vital in this moral system, as well as contextualism. Without it we'd lead ourselves into all sorts of trouble.

Thats about it.

- J Lazarus

[Indriel]

Morality is down to human choice & human responsibility. Religious dogma & our society can both offer guidelines, interpretations, opinions regarding appropriate moral behaviour, but an individual is free to accept or disregard them as he chooses.
He may need to find a way to exist within those guidelines, especially regarding social morality, but not to let them define him or his personal ethical code. A particular society sets moral standards as a reflection of what's important to & what's necessary for it to function effectively at a particular time. Those standards aren't necessarily immovable truths - they're subjective, open to challenge & able to be changed. A person may choose to conform entirely to the established moral code if it's acceptable to him; he can also disagree with it, speak out against it, openly disregard it if he wants to - so long as he's prepared to take responsibility for & accept any consequences of whatever choice he makes. And often those consequences are more negative, dangerous or adverse than we're willing to risk. A good or a bad thing? Depends on the circumstances.
Having said that, I guess when trying to determine what's moral/immoral, right/wrong we have to choose what's important to us, the values by which we want to live; when it's acceptable to conform to existing morality, when it's necessary to challenge it, to what degree we can allow our personal values to be compromised in favour of the majority's. We make those decision on our own.
As Occam said in an earlier post, nothing is black & white, & there's no truer statement than when we're dealing with morality & moral choices. So often we think we - or our society - have made a good choice, a moral choice - the 'right' choice - & then comes the 'yeah, but....' ,is it really fair, is it really the best choice, are those consequences really deserved. And you're faced with another moral dilemma.
Maybe we can't ever know for certain is a choice is moral or right, but we can make the most informed decision, the most acceptable under the circumstances we're faced with. We all have a conscience, we have intelligence, reasoning, the capacity to empathise, the ability to foresee the effects & consequences of our actions - it's up to us how & when we put them to use.

[J_Lazarus]

lol - guess from the look of Indriel's post its clear my statements have been largely ignored thus far, as I've already addressed many of her statements.

- JL

[Razorofoccam]

How does it show that there is no absolute moral code? Because the races' moral codes are different? It seems your argument is this:

1. Different cultures have different moral codes.
2. Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are simply matters of opinion and opinions vary from culture to culture.

The problem is that the argument is unsound...... ....

Alsharad.

Thanks for the considered reply. :)

Occam portrays the 'alien race' an it's moral code in the same setting as humanity. 'it' sees no enforcement of 'it's' code except by it;s own species.
Thus, quote you.
"It could be that there *is* objective truth in morality and that one of the cultures is simply mistaken."

Is only applicable if an absolute moral code exists
But is not enforced as an objective law such as the inverse law of gravity or the 2/thermodynamics.
If it is not so enforced as a LAW a 'moral law or absolute'
Then it is no such thing.
If laws are not enforced then where do they exist in reality beyond theminds of thinking beings.?

You say there may be an absolute morality.
Occam says, yes, they may be. But so far.. nothing observed.


So because you do not see moral codes enforced throughout the universe, then you conclude that they do not exist? Why should animals and non-humans be bound by moral law? Most of the moral philosophers agree that humans are set apart by the ability to reason abstractly. Such moral laws would be only applicable to those creatures capable of understanding them. To the best of our knowledge, that pretty much limits it to humans. If there was another race capable of abstract reasoning, then they to would be bound by this moral code. Note that I am not saying that "ignorance is an excuse." I am talking about the lack of cognitive ability to distinguish between right and wrong.
So if my friend and I agree that theft is okay and we rob one hundred people who think theft is wrong, we still haven't done anything wrong (illegal maybe, but not immoral)?

Occam did not mean that presentient life is bound by moral law.
But that if natural process/evolution were 'transcribed into a morality'
Then 'survival of the fittest' might be it's moto.

How did you draw the conclusion that it takes two? Is that the minimum number of people that it takes to agree on anything? Can I not be in agreement with myself (which would lower the number to one)?

You are quite correct.
One person can well do so..
A classic example is Dr Lecter


Also ..excision...ah yes...Had a blankout...
One of the foul practices and examples of human stupidity.

No I don't. I can believe that human life is sacred for any number of reasons including that we are made in God's image. Right or wrong, I do not have to ascribe to "occams morality" in order to substantiate my beliefs.

Exactly...
Now if we both believe a morality is truth.
If occam is a good man by all religious moral standards.
Then why will occam go to hell as he has been told he will by the monotheism
of christianity/islam/judeaism?
How do you resolve this...

You say there may be a moral absolute.. But none is seen...
And occam rejects many moral standards of the west and east.
So he, as a good example of his error before..
Sets his own moral code that he lives by.
It fits, roughly, with western standards. but with some reservations.

Now occam said to you
:"Then you must subscribe to occams morality."
He did what every church does a million times a day.

He said he was right , in a path through a dark forrest.

Your reply
"I do not have to ascribe to "occams morality" in order to substantiate my beliefs."

And this is exactly what occam says to human organised religion...
As the so called moral guide to humanity... It has served a function because it requires stability to exist.
And in building stability,, promotes itself..
Religious morality is pragmatic. It will murder to save itself over any individual.
Self serving.

You and occam may well have very similar moral codes.
But who or what really, decides the right and wrong...???
Some law enforced...?
Where?



That is a nice sentiment, but ultimately unfounded I think. Can you give your reasoning for believing this?

I also wanted to re-post this, Occam, and get your resonses to it. There are some difficulties when you say that culture or society determines moral codes.

1. We cannot judge other societies' practices. Seems okay at first (i.e. hey, Eskimoes can have whatever funerary practices they want... who are we to judge?) But suppose a society decided to wage war on a neighbor for the purposes of taking slaves. Or suppose a society was violently anti-Semetic and its leaders decided to wipe out the Jews. If morality is determined by society, then we cannot even say that a tolerant society is better than a racist one because this would imply some sort of transcultural standard. However, failing to condemn practices like slavery and racism (and genocide) seems unenlightened. In fact, those practices seem wrong whenever they occur. But if morality is determined by the society, then we are really in no place to judge them at all.

2. We would be able to determine the rightness or wrongness of our actions just by consulting our own society's standard. Suppose a resident of South Africa in 1975 wanted to know if apatheid was morally correct. All he would have to do is ask if the policy met with the society's moral code. In short, if society determines our moral code, then we cannot criticize our own moral code. Our society's moral code could therefore not be reformed (since there would be no way to criticize our own society's code).

3. How can a cuture progress morally? Take women's rights. Most of us believe that we have a better society because women have far more rights than they used to in the 1800s and 1900s. However, if the society decides what is moral, then all we have now is a different society then we did in the past. It is neither better nor worse than any other society in the past because we cannot say that a society which opresses women is any worse than one that doesn't. If our society used to opress women but now it doesn't, we cannot say we have progressed. All we have done is changed. We have not discarded a practice for a better one, just a different one.

What are your responses to those difficulties?

My reasoning is that if we act as a race. IF we put aside our stupid petty sqabbles and start displaying rational thought at a racial level.
We can solve most of our problems in a mater of decades [3-7]

In a century..The earth could be a garden.
No powersations,mines, factories.....

A new eden...All we have to do...Is DO IT.

1.
Then by the standards of that culture they are right o wage war of take slaves or kill jews.
By the standards of another...That culture is thus called....?
Evil?

America helps england defeat NAZI germany in western europe...
[lets not talk about that butcher stalin]
Are they the good guys?
You and occam are the kids of the good guys...
Are we the good guys?

Who are the good guys....
By what law?
[if fact,, by what 'absolute' moral law]

2.
But moral codes 'are' reformed...by evolution.

The fab5 now cavort on world TV.
Two centuries back they would be dead by the hands of the church.

How did this happen..? [occam introduces 'rational morality']

3.
Are you serious?
You cannot say if a society that oppresses women is worse than one that
does not? Your logic is clean.
But what of 'rational morality'
Read below
Analogy: A society that oppresses HALF of itself is like A fool that walks about with a finger jammed in his eye. He can only see half of anything and he is in constant pain.
Man/woman are one...2sides to the same thing. To degrade women.
Is to degrade yourself....

Humanity ....woman/man heart/mind love/reason compassion/will

Not the logic you like ...but truth.
Morality can be viewed from a logical position...
Logic is a damn powerfull tool.

But would you easily throw a baby into a fire... To save the lives of 10 people.?
Logically yes.

But in the doing...Occam thinks you and he and all we know. Would suffer massive psychological trauma in such an act.

You might wish to call that some evidence of absolute moral code.
Occam calls it the thing that makes us human.

Occam

[Alsharad]

Occam portrays the 'alien race' an it's moral code in the same setting as humanity. 'it' sees no enforcement of 'it's' code except by it;s own species.
Thus, quote you.
"It could be that there *is* objective truth in morality and that one of the cultures is simply mistaken."

Is only applicable if an absolute moral code existsWhich is the subject of our discussion. Note that I did not say that an objective moral code exists, I simply pointed out that it is possible that it exists. This (among other logical problems) renders the argument invalid.

But is not enforced as an objective law such as the inverse law of gravity or the 2/thermodynamics. If it is not so enforced as a LAW a 'moral law or absolute' Then it is no such thing.
If laws are not enforced then where do they exist in reality beyond theminds of thinking beings.?Your argument:

If an objective moral law exists, then it will be observably enforced.
No moral law is observably enforced.
Therefore, there is no objective moral law.

The argument is valid, but, I believe, unsound. The reason being that I believe your first premise is untrue and does not correspond to reality. Moral laws would not be something like the law of gravity. They would not be natural laws. They would be more like logical and mathematical laws. We cannot observe logical laws, but we cannot claim that they do not exist. We cannot observe mathematical laws, but they exist. What is really important is that they exist outside our minds. A thing cannot bring itself into existence regardless of humanity even existing. Moral laws would be abstract in nature and thus not readily observable in the same sense that one can observe and measure gravity, thermodynamics, etc.

You are quite correct. One person can well do so.. A classic example is Dr LecterSo Lecter didn't do anything morally reprehensible at all (in an objective sense). So long as he acts within his own moral code, he does nothing morally wrong. We cannot say that he did something wrong, only that it is our opinion that he did something wrong or that it would only be wrong if *we* did it. That is just non-sensical.

Also ..excision...ah yes...Had a blankout...
One of the foul practices and examples of human stupidity.It isn't detestable at all. Our culture doesn't do it, theirs does. They are different, but we cannot levy judgement against what they do in their culture. All you can say (according to your own moral theory) is that it would be destable if it occurred in current western culture.


Exactly...
Now if we both believe a morality is truth.
If occam is a good man by all religious moral standards.
Then why will occam go to hell as he has been told he will by the monotheism
of christianity/islam/judeaism?
How do you resolve this...
That is something for another thread. I will get to it on the God is dead thread.

Your reply
"I do not have to ascribe to "occams morality" in order to substantiate my beliefs."

And this is exactly what occam says to human organised religion...
As the so called moral guide to humanity... It has served a function because it requires stability to exist.
And in building stability,, promotes itself..
Religious morality is pragmatic. It will murder to save itself over any individual.
Self serving.If the moral codes the religion promotes are sound, then you should at least give them consideration. Rember that you must judge the moral codes and teachings apart from the people that promote them. People are fallible and I will say that the Christian church has had some very corrupt leaders. Do not dicount the moral codes simply because some people are hypocritical (that is commiting the fallacy of ad hominem).

My reasoning is that if we act as a race. IF we put aside our stupid petty sqabbles and start displaying rational thought at a racial level. We can solve most of our problems in a mater of decades [3-7]

A new eden...All we have to do...Is DO IT.That's quite a vision! Of course it would require changing the fundamental nature of humanity, but hey, I agree that it would be nice. Oh yeah, if there is no absolute moral code, then the world you describe is no better than a world of pollution, corruption and facist dictatorship. A world of torture and cruelty is no worse than a garden of eden... unless there is an objective moral code.

1.Then by the standards of that culture they are right o wage war of take slaves or kill jews.
By the standards of another...That culture is thus called....?
Evil?

America helps england defeat NAZI germany in western europe...
[lets not talk about that butcher stalin]
Are they the good guys?
You and occam are the kids of the good guys...
Are we the good guys?

Who are the good guys....
By what law?
[if fact,, by what 'absolute' moral law]Your "good guys' question is a little to simplistic. You are proposing that Germany did nothing wrong with slaughtering Jews. A better question would be "was it morally correct to stop Germany?" I can say "yes, absolutely." You have to say "no" because your theory advances that nothing a culture does is morally correct or incorrect (it is all neutral). Your position is counter-intuitive and just doesn't seem right (or logical).

2. But moral codes 'are' reformed...by evolution.

The fab5 now cavort on world TV.
Two centuries back they would be dead by the hands of the church.

How did this happen..? [occam introduces 'rational morality']You are avoiding the question. Evolution is change. I do not say that moral standards within a society do not change. They do. However, the issue is that if the *only* standard for morality comes from the culture, then you will always know what is right by consulting your own culture. You cannot criticize your own culture because it is the standard. If you deviate from the cultural standards in anything, you are wrong and it is right. Note that above you said that occam "Sets his own moral code that he lives by. It fits, roughly, with western standards. but with some reservations." If you deviate at all (the rough part of fitting within the standards), then with regard to those areas of deviation, you are morally *wrong* and it is wrong of you to hold to standards that are not in accord with that of society.

3.Are you serious?
You cannot say if a society that oppresses women is worse than one that
does not? Your logic is clean.
But what of 'rational morality'
Read below
Analogy: A society that oppresses HALF of itself is like A fool that walks about with a finger jammed in his eye. He can only see half of anything and he is in constant pain.
Man/woman are one...2sides to the same thing. To degrade women.
Is to degrade yourself....You addressed the example, not the issue. How about slavery? Infanticide? Acceptance of homosexuality? Tolerance? Free speech? All of these are issues in which people suppose we have made moral progression. If the society sets the standard, all we can do is change, not progress. A society that has slaves is no worse than one without them. No free speech is no worse than free speech. You see the problem?

But would you easily throw a baby into a fire... To save the lives of 10 people.?
Logically yes.If I am a utilitarian. A Kantian would say "absolutely not, let the 10 people die. You are never to use a human (even a baby) as a means to an end."

But in the doing...Occam thinks you and he and all we know. Would suffer massive psychological trauma in such an act.Only if I believe that what I did was wrong. A hard-core utilitarian could do it and think little of it afterwards convinced that he took the morally responsible and correct course of action.

[Alsharad]

From J Lazarus:
1) Simply because society's view of morals has changed over time or between societies does not mean that an objective sort of ethical code does not exist.I would definitely agree with you on this one. :)
2) I would define morality as the "study of action". How we should and should not act.Here we go... let's get to the good stuff!! I'll grant you the above definition. We are in agreement (for now at least). :D
Now, notice how every human being pursues what they perceive as their best interest. Everyone has their own self-interest at heart, what they believe is best for them (although it might not always be what is best for them, such as the woman who stays with her abusive husband).I also agree here. Most people would not disagree that our actions eventually are self-centered. Just for clarification, you are not at all saying that people are conciously "selfish", but that, as a rule, we do what we think is in our best interests (like eat, sleep, play, etc.).
Also, as human beings, it is recognized that we all have a certain heirarchy of values in common, which have been given the term "Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs", and is accepted in the field of psychology. These are:
Material needs...
"Spiritual" needs...
Social needs...
Political needs...Okay so far.
Because we all naturally wish to prosper and survive by our very instincts, and because these needs are necessary for that - I submit that it is in our best interest that we act in such a way that would bring us into the fulfillment of these values. Therefore, not only is it necessary that we follow these ourselves, but also that we respect others in a way that they too can pursue these needs - because not doing so would affect our pursual of these needs ourselves.This is definitely a theory that has some substance behind it. In fact, it reads like social contract theory. We all agree on a set of morals because having everyone follow those morals is beneficial to ourselves. The theory is very practical. It addresses less of "what should be" and more of "what really is".

But...

You said "Therefore, not only is it necessary that we follow these ourselves, but also that we respect others in a way that they too can pursue these needs." This works so long as everyone agrees, but what about creatures that cannot either implicitly or explicity agree to work together for everyone's mutual benefit.

For example, animals are not able to cognitively participate in this type of agreement. In fact, in nature, we see animals killing in persuit of their needs regardless of any possible reprocussion. Several mating rituals for animals would be akin to rape in human society. I point this out to illustrate that, while some species might have societies, animals in general do not have the ability to come to a mutually beneficial agreement with humanity. As such, they would be outside the bounds of this moral system. We would be under no moral obligation towards animals at all. Specifically, we would be under no moral obligation to not torture them. There would be nothing inherently wrong with nailing animals paws to boards in order to vivisect them (as they have done in the past).

Still, there are those who would be so radical as to say "hey, that's okay." So let me introduce a second example. There are humans who also lack the cognitive ability to participate in this moral arrangement. Some do not even realize when they do harm to others. This mental impairement prevents them from understanding the implications of their actions. So, much like animals, they fall outside the scope of a mutually beneficial agreement between individuals. Would you say that it is morally wrong to, for no reason, torture someone who is mentally impaired? Most of us would find it more reprehensible than torturing someone who is not mentally impaired.

In these two cases, would it be in our best interest to "respect others in a way that they too can pursue these needs" when they cannot return the respect in kind? Would treating these cases as being outside the moral standards negatively impact "our pursual of these needs ourselves"? I think this system of belief might be obligated to say "no."
This has been a rather crude presentation of the objectivist's theory of ethics, but I feel I get my point across well enough.Still very well put. I hope my responses were accurate in understanding your theory. If not, please correct me and we will go from there. :)
Also keep in mind that the employment of reason and logical process is vital in this moral system, as well as contextualism. Without it we'd lead ourselves into all sorts of trouble.No kidding! Just look at the world that relativism promises...

[Razorofoccam]

Which is the subject of our discussion. Note that I did not say that an objective moral code exists, I simply pointed out that it is possible that it exists. This (among other logical problems) renders the argument invalid.
Given

Your argument:

If an objective moral law exists, then it will be observably enforced.
No moral law is observably enforced.
Therefore, there is no objective moral law.

The argument is valid, but, I believe, unsound. The reason being that I believe your first premise is untrue and does not correspond to reality. Moral laws would not be something like the law of gravity. They would not be natural laws. They would be more like logical and mathematical laws. We cannot observe logical laws, but we cannot claim that they do not exist. We cannot observe mathematical laws, but they exist. What is really important is that they exist outside our minds. A thing cannot bring itself into existence regardless of humanity even existing. Moral laws would be abstract in nature and thus not readily observable in the same sense that one can observe and measure gravity, thermodynamics, etc.
Logical and mathematical laws are interpretations of observed reality.
They are our way of talking about observed reality.
They exist as stuctures in human minds and books. Because humans exist.
Without humans..There are no human logical and mathematical laws.

Ah,, logic flies to the winds.. "Moral laws would be abstract in nature and thus not readily observable in the same sense that one can observe and measure gravity, thermodynamics, etc."

Pure speculation.


So Lecter didn't do anything morally reprehensible at all (in an objective sense). So long as he acts within his own moral code, he does nothing morally wrong. We cannot say that he did something wrong, only that it is our opinion that he did something wrong or that it would only be wrong if *we* did it. That is just non-sensical.
TO HIM
He does nothing morally wrong.
To occam he does.
Who is to say if he is 'insane' by our standards.
Or sane by his...?
The majority?

Look a lecter closley and you will see a complex moral code.
Lecter kills none on a whim.
All life taken is by a code.
his code.
A morality. [in fact,, perceptably, a racial one]


It isn't detestable at all. Our culture doesn't do it, theirs does. They are different, but we cannot levy judgement against what they do in their culture. All you can say (according to your own moral theory) is that it would be destable if it occurred in current western culture.
Occam agrees that the humans of these cultures can and will do as they please.
In his code of morals.
Rule one is that all humans have an inherent right to life, and freedom from
opression and physical coercion.

Occam agrees that as long as human social systems are many. That human moral codes will be diverse.
If women are excised in some countries.

Then occam can only say that if a woman so wishes to be butchered
So be it.
If she does not..But surrenders her basic human rights to those of a moral majority. Through fear and overwhelming social pressure.
Then occam has every reason to say excision is a foul and heinous act.

Luckily for the church. Occam was never circumcised.
Or he might think of revenge :)


If the moral codes the religion promotes are sound, then you should at least give them consideration. Rember that you must judge the moral codes and teachings apart from the people that promote them. People are fallible and I will say that the Christian church has had some very corrupt leaders. Do not dicount the moral codes simply because some people are hypocritical (that is commiting the fallacy of ad hominem).
Many are sound...
Most are acceptable...
But many are not...
And the church is so slow in the fast world.
It is vastly conservative.

New moral codes become real literally overnight...
If enough humans accept code variation on the media.
It becomes a standard.

Homosexuallity is now a norm.
Those who persecute homosexuals are 'criminals'
Rightly so :)
After all, how can an absolute morality take any side in a question of sexual preference between consenting beings?

That's quite a vision! Of course it would require changing the fundamental nature of humanity, but hey, I agree that it would be nice. Oh yeah, if there is no absolute moral code, then the world you describe is no better than a world of pollution, corruption and facist dictatorship. A world of torture and cruelty is no worse than a garden of eden... unless there is an objective moral code.
Not at all. Humans could start it right this minute... All we need do is decide that 1.5 trillion US dollars spent annually is not spent on defence.
But on turning our earth into a natural garden.
Like so many.. you have litle faith in the power of our racial will.
In 1942
Einstien wrote a letter to FDR.
3 years latter. The first A Bomb was detonated.
A phenomenal feat by any standard.

If just 20% of humans were turned absolutely to a task..[and not just the .05% of the manhattan project]
Humanity , could do just about anything.

Your "good guys' question is a little to simplistic. You are proposing that Germany did nothing wrong with slaughtering Jews. A better question would be "was it morally correct to stop Germany?" I can say "yes, absolutely." You have to say "no" because your theory advances that nothing a culture does is morally correct or incorrect (it is all neutral). Your position is counter-intuitive and just doesn't seem right (or logical).
incorrect.
The proposition was that german morality as dictated by the national socialist
party on a surpine nation said that such killing was acceptable.
A morality imposed by terror on a nation.. is still a morality.
Correct, by thier standards.
Not by occams..

Here a morality became apparent as one that would harm ALL who did not adhere to it.
German power , was to be imposed on any it could.
Rampant expansionism..
To resist such is analogous to an immune system reaction to EBoli virus.

The world response to Japanese and german totalitarian expansionism is a pure example of rational morality applied.
ALL who would be free. Resisted.

You are avoiding the question. Evolution is change. I do not say that moral standards within a society do not change. They do. However, the issue is that if the *only* standard for morality comes from the culture, then you will always know what is right by consulting your own culture. You cannot criticize your own culture because it is the standard. If you deviate from the cultural standards in anything, you are wrong and it is right. Note that above you said that occam "Sets his own moral code that he lives by. It fits, roughly, with western standards. but with some reservations." If you deviate at all (the rough part of fitting within the standards), then with regard to those areas of deviation, you are morally *wrong* and it is wrong of you to hold to standards that are not in accord with that of society.
No. Occam is not morally wrong in holding a particular moral stance.
The moral codes that do not agree with his are morally wrong.
By his standards...
But..As in all human thought.
There is grey area.

Very likely that you and occam hold much agreement on moral codes.
But still we will disagree on many points.
Most of western code agree on basic tenets...
But not so on peripheral standards.
Thus the code is dynamic.

It, society and humanity as a race....evolve.

You addressed the example, not the issue. How about slavery? Infanticide? Acceptance of homosexuality? Tolerance? Free speech? All of these are issues in which people suppose we have made moral progression. If the society sets the standard, all we can do is change, not progress. A society that has slaves is no worse than one without them. No free speech is no worse than free speech. You see the problem?
How do you know we do not progress..

Occam believes that. Human beings as individuals experience FAR LESS
violence/bigotry/hate exct in there lives.
Than at any time in human history.

Can you imagine the reaction of the world media if a town and it's church in a western nation decided to burn a heritic?

There is more violence in the world as a total [to say 2000bc]
But there are 20 times more people,,

Morallity is evolving.. What is good, survives, because we like it. Because we make morality.


If I am a utilitarian. A Kantian would say "absolutely not, let the 10 people die. You are never to use a human (even a baby) as a means to an end."
Let us put utilitarians aside for the moment. To occam they run by a preset moral code. Efficiency made moral.

Now the Kantian you mention..What would he say if the baby was replaced by a human who wished to sacrifice itself to save 10 others.
But cannot do it alone. The ten must help in its death.


Only if I believe that what I did was wrong. A hard-core utilitarian could do it an think little of it afterwards convinced that he took the morally responsible and correct course of action.How many do you know that could act so?
How many utilitarians?

Occam has not met one [consciously]
They no doubt exist. But die young.
Or if truly utilitarian. Never reveal themselves.

Occam

[Alsharad]

Logical and mathematical laws are interpretations of observed reality.
They are our way of talking about observed reality.
They exist as stuctures in human minds and books. Because humans exist.
Without humans..There are no human logical and mathematical laws.There are many mathematicians and logicians that would disagree with that. Take this for example:

2+2=4

What have you observed? I submit that you have just observed a mathematical relationship that does not exist in any empirical sense. Here is another:

Velocity is a derivative of acceleration.

You can say that velocity exists and that acceleration exists, but you must also say that the relationship between them exists. We describe the relationship as a derivative, but the relationship exists none-the-less. This relationship is abstract and non-empirical. It is mathematical in nature.

Here is another one.

An object cannot bring itself into existence. Why not? Is there some sort of natural law the forbids it? No. It is a logical impossiblity. The laws of logic exist outside of human minds. They are universal and would apply even if humanity does not observe anything at all.

Ah,, logic flies to the winds.. "Moral laws would be abstract in nature and thus not readily observable in the same sense that one can observe and measure gravity, thermodynamics, etc."

Pure speculation.How does logic fly to the wind in my statement. Here is the logic to my statement.

If moral laws exist, they are either empirical or non-empirical.
Moral laws exist.
Therefore, moral laws are either empirical or non-empirical.
Moral laws are not empirical.
Therefore, moral laws are non-empirical.

It is not speculation; it is the product of rational deduction. My statement is true. If moral laws exist, they would be non-empirical

How are you logically drawing the conclusion that morality is relative to the individual? If you cannot provide a valid argument, then you are throwing logic "to the wind" as it were.

Look a lecter closley and you will see a complex moral code.
Lecter kills none on a whim.
All life taken is by a code.
his code.
A morality. [in fact,, perceptably, a racial one]But you are still coming back to the idea that because they are different that there is no absolute moral code. This does not follow logically. Saying it over again does not make it true.

Occam agrees that the humans of these cultures can and will do as they please.
In his code of morals...While your code is admirable, you have given me no reason to adopt it. Suppose I chose a code that was in total opposition to your own, you cannot say that I am wrong, only that I have a different opinion. In fact, here is another logical argument showing that your posistion is inconsistent and therefore untrue.

Let's take the statement "Wearing metal is wrong." Now, if I agree, then I think wearing metal is wrong. However, if there is no absolute moral code, then anything that I say that supports that statement has one function: it expresses my opinion. "Wearing metal is detestable", "metal wearers are committing immoral acts by wearing metal", "wearing metal is heinous and wrong!" All these statements are simply expressing my opinion that wearing metal is wrong. If you disagree, you think that wearing metal is morally acceptable. Now look at the position that we are in logically. Our opinions are disagree, yes? Now, if someone asks me what your opinion is on the matter of wearing metal I say "he says it is moral, but that is just his opinion." So, I can state my opinion and I can state your opinion. You can do the same. However, I would be in agreement with my own opinion, and I would be in agreement that the opposite is your opinion. You would be in the same position. We would then be at an impasse. We can only discuss our opinions, not the actual subject matter. However, on any subject, I am in agreement with my opinions and I must agree with any statement regarding your opinion (because it is about your opinion, not the actual subject matter). So there is no disagreement.

Uh-oh. Our opinions disagree, but are also in agreement. That is contradictory. Therefore, the statement "wearing metal is wrong" must have some sort of absolute reference point because if we say it is opinion, it leads to a contradiction. Not only that, if every moral statement can be premised with the phrase "it is my opinion that x" the subject of the statement changes from 'x' to 'my opinion.' If all moral statements are simply opinion, then we cannot even discuss moral concepts in any meaningful sense. We cannot discuss actual murder or rape, we can only discuss our opinions. We would not be able to even discuss these things because I could only discuss my opinions and your could only discuss your opinions. You see what I am talking about? We would not even be discussing the same subject.

Many are sound...
Most are acceptable...
But many are not...
And the church is so slow in the fast world.
It is vastly conservative.And that is bad? Last I checked, research takes time. So does thoughtful reflection. Both are hallmarks of critical thinking. And what is wrong with being conservative when being faced with new (possibly radical) ideas?

New moral codes become real literally overnight...
If enough humans accept code variation on the media.
It becomes a standard.So what? It still doesn't follow that there is no moral code. The new standard might be wrong.

Homosexuallity is now a norm.
Those who persecute homosexuals are 'criminals'
Rightly so
After all, how can an absolute morality take any side in a question of sexual preference between consenting beings?If there is an absolute moral code that prohibits homosexuality, then anyone who transgressed that code is wrong.

Not at all. Humans could start it right this minute... You didn't answer reply. Why is that better than a world run by a facist dictator, full of pollution, damaged beyond repair?

Here a morality became apparent as one that would harm ALL who did not adhere to it.
German power , was to be imposed on any it could.
Rampant expansionism..
To resist such is analogous to an immune system reaction to EBoli virus.Again, if morality is fluid, why is that such a big deal? Why is it necessary that I even care about my own health?

No. Occam is not morally wrong in holding a particular moral stance.
The moral codes that do not agree with his are morally wrong.
By his standards...
But..As in all human thought.
There is grey area.According to my morality, there is a moral code that applies equally to all human beings whether they like it or not. Am I wrong?


How do you know we do not progress..Because if morality is fluid then one is no worse or better than another. If moral systems cannot get better then they cannot progress, they can only change. No system is better than any other.

Let us put utilitarians aside for the moment. To occam they run by a preset moral code. Efficiency made moral.But is that code in error? Does it not correspond to reality?

Now the Kantian you mention..What would he say if the baby was replaced by a human who wished to sacrifice itself to save 10 others.
But cannot do it alone. The ten must help in its death.They'll say the same thing. No human should be used as a means to an end. The ten will die.

[Razorofoccam]

Alsharad


Will answer post tomorrow.It's 2am here and occam is stuffed...
Brain lockup...:) [propably a glitchy OS]

Occam

------------
There are no athiests in foxholes..
But quite a few agnostics :)

[J_Lazarus]

Thank you for considering my post.

Now, you mentioned animals as concerned with ethics. The objectivist theory does not grant animals "rights" because of their inability to cognitively participate, as you put it - but it does point to them as a moral responsibility (something you and I are in agreement with). You have outlined some reasons why you believe this cannot happen under this system. Let me address why keeping animals as a moral responsibility is ultimately necessary and beneficial:

1) Respecting nature in general (which would include the animal kingdom) is crucial to human well-being. Imagine the earth without trees (alot less oxygen) or good water (nothing to drink, in fact I think we're down to 3% water usage in the world, everything else is frozen, inaccessible, or polluted) or a lack of animals as a food resource. Heh - to use a stupid example, the "Lion King" portrays a bit of what I'm talking about. Under Scar's rule, no one respected the "circle of life" type thing they had going on - and because of this they had no food and no water. We must respect nature in general or else it will ultimately hurt our ability to survive and prosper (as we instinctively wish to do).

2) Some animals we can gain companionship with - such as dogs, cats, horses, bears, lions, wolves (yes, there are quite a few places that are licensed to take care of some of these animals, and the humans there gain a companionship with them). Because of this ability of friendship domesticated animals become of high value to human beings. It is not sensible, responsible, nor morally correct to mistreat something of high value to each human being. You hear sometimes someone saying to another that it was wrong of that person to insult his brother, father, or mother because of who they are - people of high value to us individually who we should not wish to hurt. Same applies to animals.

And that's another crude explanation from me on why animals should be included in an objective moral system.

Thanks much,

- J Lazarus

[geckopelli]

Anthropologically speaking, anything that furthers the prosperity of the tribe is moral by definition. Anything that detracts from that prosperity is immoral.

That definiton, subject to the subjective interpretation of what is "good" or "bad" for the percieved "tribe" holds today.

It is the justifacation for locking-up pot smokers, it's the justifacation for blowing-up buildings, and it's the justifacation for ALL forms of conservatism- something that runs deep in homo sapients.

[Razorofoccam]

There are many mathematicians and logicians that would disagree with that. Take this for example:

And there are many who would agree.

occam quotes neither


Moral laws exist.
Therefore, moral laws are either empirical or non-empirical.

Assumption


But you are still coming back to the idea that because they are different that there is no absolute moral code. This does not follow logically. Saying it over again does not make it true.

Occam says it because no objective moral code is observably enforced.
No LAW is enforced.
If a law/rule is not enforced.
Then it is no such thing.
[but words 'called' a law by those that wish it to be]


"Again, if morality is fluid, why is that such a big deal? Why is it necessary that I even care about my own health?"

Thats called survival.
Another thread.

"Because if morality is fluid then one is no worse or better than another. If moral systems cannot get better then they cannot progress, they can only change. No system is better than any other.

You talk of morality as if
IT SHOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE

Occam can think of nothing worse.
Imagine humans that could do no wrong
How would they know what wrong was?
Without choice. Good/bad become like walking off a cliff or not.
Without choice.
Good becomes survival, and bad becomes no survival.
You think absolute laws promote god?
They promote evolution.

Good and bad exist... because there is no absolute moral laws.
Good and bad then exist not as things in themselves.
But interpreted structures in human thought.

Morality is an etherial thing...

Those thing, like love, morality, compassion, beauty.exct...
Are what make us human...You want to turn them into laws.

They are all, of the mind.


Occam

[Alsharad]

J_Lazarus

Thank you for considering my post.My pleasure! It was a very interesting theory. I like thoughts with meat behind them. ;)

Now, you mentioned animals as concerned with ethics. The objectivist theory does not grant animals "rights" because of their inability to cognitively participate, as you put it - but it does point to them as a moral responsibility (something you and I are in agreement with).Yes, we both agree that we should treat animals well. I think we disagree as to why.

1) Respecting nature in general (which would include the animal kingdom) is crucial to human well-being. Imagine the earth without trees (alot less oxygen) or good water (nothing to drink, in fact I think we're down to 3% water usage in the world, everything else is frozen, inaccessible, or polluted) or a lack of animals as a food resource.I would agree that we should respect nature in general and that it would be detrimental to our continued existence. However, I do not think that this really answers the question. For example, it is to our benefit to herd beef cattle. It would be detrimental to wipe them out as a species, but with moderation, we can cull the herd to meet our needs for food. Now, if we are respecting nature generally, can we "disrespect" it in the specifics. Take the cattle for example. Now, we kill the cow, then carve up the carcass and eat it. We have made sure that it has already produced offspring so we have made sure that the "cycle of life" has been preserved. At this point, why do we kill it before we carve it up? Would there be anything morally wrong with carving it up while it was still alive? Instictively we recoil and think that would be a horrible thing to do, but if we have respected nature in general (by maintaining the ecosystem, etc.) then how would this be wrong? Why?

As another example, say we come across a wounded animal that is obviously dying and will not survive. Some people would say that it would be immoral to let it suffer and they would just kill it. Others would say that we should not kill and would do what they can to help the creature. VERY few would say that they would tease and torture the animal for fun since it doesn't do any real harm (the animal is going to die anyway). The thought of this type of behavior is morally offensive to most of us. In any of the three cases, however, nature "in general" would be respected, though not necessarily in this specific instance. How does your theory deal with such a situation?

2) Some animals we can gain companionship with - such as dogs, cats, horses, bears, lions, wolves... Because of this ability of friendship domesticated animals become of high value to human beings. It is not sensible, responsible, nor morally correct to mistreat something of high value to each human being.This, I think, is a stronger line of reasoning than your first. And it fits more completely within the scope of your theory. However, I am not sure that it sufficiently deals with the issue. I agree that your theory supports the idea that it would be immoral to destroy things of value to another person. Where I think this line of argument fails is that it draws a conclusion that cannot be substantiated. There are *some* animals that can gain companionship with humans. I do not see how it follows then, that we should afford the protection afforded to domestic animals to all animals. We feel a certain kinship with mammals, but can we feel companionship for birds? Reptiles? Fish? Insects? Invertebrates? Is it wrong to torture a worm for no other reason that we gain a sense of pleasure from watching it squirm? Is it okay to pull the wings off of flies? Can these creatures have a sense of value for us in the same way that a "pet" can? If not (which I believe is the case) then this fails to address the problem of why torturing animals is wrong. If so, could you please explain how or give specific examples?

And that's another crude explanation from me on why animals should be included in an objective moral system.And they were very well thought out. I feel as though they were inadequate in addressing the issue though. Your first reason was too vague and your second really only addressed a very specific subset of animals (those capable of establishing "friendship"). In my opinion, your theory needs to be broad enough to address how we should treat other living creatures, but specific enough to address how we should treat *every* living creature.


-------------------
geckopelli

Anthropologically speaking, anything that furthers the prosperity of the tribe is moral by definition. Anything that detracts from that prosperity is immoral.

That definiton, subject to the subjective interpretation of what is "good" or "bad" for the percieved "tribe" holds today.I am not at all in agreement. This ends up in a fluidic moral system where the majority in the "tribe" dictates what is moral and what is immoral. It just doesn't fit. See my arguments with Occam elsewhere in this thread to understand why.


-------------------
Razorofoccam

Originally Posted by Alsharad
There are many mathematicians and logicians that would disagree with that. Take this for example:

And there are many who would agree.I don't know of a single logician that would say that logic is simply an invention of the human mind. The laws of logic are universal because they are always true no matter what. As such, they exist outside the human mind because they would exist even if there were no humans to formulate them.

Moral laws exist.
Therefore, moral laws are either empirical or non-empirical.

AssumptionNo. Conclusion. If there is an assumption, it is that they exist at all. We can debate that. However, if they exist, then they are non-empirical by rational deduction.

Occam says it because no objective moral code is observably enforced.
No LAW is enforced.
If a law/rule is not enforced.
Then it is no such thing.
[but words 'called' a law by those that wish it to be]You do not see it enforced in the same way you see "empirical" laws enforced. What does that prove? It is entirely possible that they are not enforced in that way YET. Another possibility (and more likely) is that empirical laws are empirically observable; non-empirical laws are obervable through non-empirical means (like reason and logic). What does not follow is that non-empirical laws would have empirical effects. This is what you expect. It simply does not follow. So, either you are being illogical or you have an argument which shows how a non-empirical principle or truth will have a direct and observable consequence.

"Again, if morality is fluid, why is that such a big deal? Why is it necessary that I even care about my own health?"


Thats called survival.
Another thread.But that doesn't answer the question. Why should I care about survival? Many people in the past haven't. Are they bound by any sort of moral code? If they do not care about surviving, why should they remain moral by cultural standards? Why not simply act as their whims dictate?


"Because if morality is fluid then one is no worse or better than another. If moral systems cannot get better then they cannot progress, they can only change. No system is better than any other.


You talk of morality as if
IT SHOULD BE AN ABSOLUTEI am simply outlining the conclusions of your line of thinking. If no moral code is better than another, then we cannot go from worse to better. We cannot progress at all. In fact, we have not progressed morally since the dawn of time. This isn't MY line of reasoning... it is the logical conclusion of a fluid, non-absolute morality.

Occam can think of nothing worse.
Imagine humans that could do no wrong
How would they know what wrong was?
Without choice. Good/bad become like walking off a cliff or not.
Without choice.
Good becomes survival, and bad becomes no survival.
You think absolute laws promote god?
They promote evolution.I did not follow any of that. How are you drawing your conclusions?

Good and bad exist... because there is no absolute moral laws.
Good and bad then exist not as things in themselves.
But interpreted structures in human thought.

Morality is an etherial thing...

Those thing, like love, morality, compassion, beauty.exct...
Are what make us human...You want to turn them into laws.

They are all, of the mind.That is all very poetic. Unfortunately, poetic language, with its double meanings and emotional statements, generally hinder the logical process. Could you please explain your logic here? You agree that morality exists, but not that there are any rules or laws to it. That just doesn't follow. I would agree that a world without morals would be a pretty bad place. But how is that different from a world where everyone follows their *own* moral code?

[Razorofoccam]

I don't know of a single logician that would say that logic is simply an invention of the human mind. The laws of logic are universal because they are always true no matter what. As such, they exist outside the human mind because they would exist even if there were no humans to formulate them.
But human logic IS a creation of the human mind.

It is the interface between what IS.
And our world. [of mind]

Yes.That which exists outside the human mind supports logic..
But human logic is not the thing.
Any more than the map is the terrian.
And yes reality , as occam proposed on another thread. Is truth.
Reality incorporates logic.Or so it appears to us.
So we use it to manipulate the stuff of really.
And that WORKS...
Radios. cars TV's planes . computers.

Great stuff.



No. Conclusion. If there is an assumption, it is that they exist at all. We can debate that. However, if they exist, then they are non-empirical by rational deduction.
Occam assumes nothing..Especially the existence of any moral laws.
You assume that objective moral laws exist.
By the position you hold in this converstaion.
Yet you call the existence of said laws an assumption.
"If there is an assumption, it is that they exist at all"

But if they exist, are they 'non-empirical by rational deduction?'

OK , moral laws are non-empirical by rational deduction...
Thus. Moral laws cannot be experienced by humans ...by rational deduction..

As they MUST be enforced on humans to BE human/existent laws.
Then where are they?

Or. do you call a law something 'called a law' but is never enforced...

Then the word 'law' is no law at all..
Gravity is the ONE.
An example for all to see..of what a law IS.
If morality was LAW.
Then what morality occam asks
Is enforced other than by humans.?

If christian morality was a LAW.
Then what would happen

OHHHOHHH. the jesuits got there first.

You ONLY are punnished AFTER you die...

But that doesn't answer the question. Why should I care about survival? Many people in the past haven't. Are they bound by any sort of moral code? If they do not care about surviving, why should they remain moral by cultural standards? Why not simply act as their whims dictate?
Good point.
Occam replies by saying...
Kill youself now...
maybe you will take it as a 'whim'

If he does not hear from you.
Then you are dead..
And basking forever in the eternal monotony of gods radiance.


I am simply outlining the conclusions of your line of thinking. If no moral code is better than another, then we cannot go from worse to better. We cannot progress at all. In fact, we have not progressed morally since the dawn of time. This isn't MY line of reasoning... it is the logical conclusion of a fluid, non-absolute morality.
What crap.
'We have not progressed morally since the dawn of time?"

Occam has NEVER seen a human die before his eyes.

This is the norm.

3000 years back. A person who never saw another die by the evil intent of another. Was a rare thing.
Dont let your idea of reality be dictated by hollywood.
Life now is a dream compared to what people had to deal with.

We are only just OUT OF THE PIT [of ignorance]

occam

[geckopelli]

J_Lazarus


-------------------
geckopelli

I am not at all in agreement. This ends up in a fluidic moral system where the majority in the "tribe" dictates what is moral and what is immoral. It just doesn't fit. See my arguments with Occam elsewhere in this thread to understand why.


-------------------

Your arguments fail to state an objective basis for a "moral code". Without survival as the main consideration "morality" becomes a moot point; the propounded view of an individual. Nopn-survival 99.9% of the time.

"Moral" is what perpetuates the carriers of the "moral code".

[Razorofoccam]

Your arguments fail to state an objective basis for a "moral code". Without survival as the main consideration "morality" becomes a moot point; the propounded view of an individual. Nopn-survival 99.9% of the time.

"Moral" is what perpetuates the carriers of the "moral code".
Gecko

Where have you been?

Slumming on some sunny rock?

:)

Occam

[geckopelli]

Gecko

Where have you been?

Slumming on some sunny rock?

:)

Occam
I was accused of being theprophetoftheword and told too stay the hell out of this forum.

Never could follow rules!

That rock is lined with mink!

[moonbeam]

right and wrong does not EXIST. It is all in your head, in your programming, and brainwashing, and sometimes in extreme cases, genetics. Then there is that biological instinct to preserve the species, which covers a lot of determining for "right" and "wrong". I mean, things are what you make of them. You cant deem something right, because it just IS. you cant deem it wrong, it just IS. Think of it that way.

[geckopelli]

right and wrong does not EXIST. It is all in your head, in your programming, and brainwashing, and sometimes in extreme cases, genetics. Then there is that biological instinct to preserve the species, which covers a lot of determining for "right" and "wrong". I mean, things are what you make of them. You cant deem something right, because it just IS. you cant deem it wrong, it just IS. Think of it that way.
Yhea!

and other stuff to make this message long enough

[Jedi]

right and wrong does not EXIST. It is all in your head, in your programming, and brainwashing and sometimes in extreme cases, genetics..lol in other words, you don't believe in God, but you actually agree in some way that you are subordinate to the almighty being.

[geckopelli]

lol in other words, you don't believe in God, but you actually agree in some way that you are subordinate to the almighty being.
How in the world to you misinterpret things so badly?
Where is the requirement for a god?
Is Evolution your God? Do you believe genetics is the Language of God?

[Jedi]

How in the world to you misinterpret things so badly?
Where is the requirement for a god?
Is Evolution your God? Do you believe genetics is the Language of God?By the way i see it, you can call that misinterpretation, illusory or whatever...

You see, when you say things are like that because they ARE programmed... that leaves only one meaning . Genetics may not be God's words in the type of christianity that you perceive as religion in your mind...

However, in some religions in the world.. this whole cosmos is God... in some religions also.. (you are totally aware of this)... we are like puppets and the real player is God.

So who programs us? evolution?- yes, who is programming evolution itself?-randomness?- agreed- who got the concept of randomness into the system?- God. Many scriptures in the world totally explain!- He is randomness!! He is programming!-He is evolution and He is even you!, he is everything

At the most higher level and the most lowest level my friend, He exists and He "IS" . So I found a little humor in it when the poster here said "it is genetics" , "it is in your programming" ... "it is like that because it just IS, there is no right or wrong" and you saying "Yea" (implying that there is no God).
it was a harmless laugh
:D :)

[geckopelli]

So who programs us? evolution?- yes, who is programming evolution itself?-randomness?- agreed- who got the concept of randomness into the system?- God.
:D :)
Your assumpution of god as an enity is still unwarranted.

If by "GOD" you mean a description of the natural laws that govern existence than that's a different matter.

But if "GOD" means supernatural intelligent being, well, then, There's as much evidence for Santa Claus.

Randomness is the basis of existence. I am well prepared to argue that that basis tends to discredit the idea of a super intelligence with magical power.

You can't argue intelligent guidance and a crap shoot all at the same time. One way or the other.

[Jedi]

Your assumpution of god as an enity is still unwarranted.

"Still unwarranted" for me says "we are ignorant to the truth" , well we don't have to be you know.


If by "GOD" you mean a description of the natural laws that govern existence than that's a different matter.

But if "GOD" means supernatural intelligent being, well, then, There's as much evidence for Santa Claus.

Randomness is the basis of existence. I am well prepared to argue that that basis tends to discredit the idea of a super intelligence with magical power.

You can't argue intelligent guidance and a crap shoot all at the same time. One way or the other.
Is it unwarranted my friend or are you ignorant to the truth? because the scriptures that I read are from the enlightened rishis from the past and they have done great penances, great thinking... invented math, science, medicine, yet weren't satisfied until they were god realized. So would you think that just because bunch of modern scientists have not "yet discovered" such an entity, you think there is no warranty of existence? what about the time he has come to this world? - what about the reasons for why such an entity has not communicated with us for a while?

You know randomness does not have to contradict supernatural power. Tell me what gravity is... gravity is the pull that an object with a mass has, but what is it really? it is what others may call majical power.. you call it gravity.

Others may call randomness as a very intricate, critical , powerful mechanism that is made by such a being- who is beyond our senses or power of perception.

Mr./Ms Gekcopelli, even einstein was bewildered about how twin particles that are opposite to each other can communicate so fast across galaxies in quantum physics and called it "spooky power of the mysterious universe"- I saw it on a discovery science channel.. channel 170 on I.O. digital cable network. Then they made a theory of the seemless whole!- it is a whole because they are all connected and they are all connected to one source...

So, there is nothing wrong in believing that one source is the source of all conscience, source of all wisdom , source of creation, source of enlightenment and there is nothing wrong in believing that such a source is a consicous entity on its own.. okay? - you may call it crap , illusion or what not, but some idiots like me and also some saints like Mahatma Gandhi, as well as some scientists like Albert Einstein call it the reality and the truth.

Thanks for reading :D

[geckopelli]

Ther IS something wrong with mistaking one's beliefs for reality.

There's no evidence nor need for a super natural entity.

Because a relativly ignorant man of the past said something is hardly "proff" of anything.

Your book and your god's supposed visit(s) to earth are just more assumptions based on your opinion and nothing more. Not ONE shred of objective evidence.

Dose antiquity equal validation? I submit that your "sages" of the past were fools who filled the gaps in there knowledge expediently.

[nephthys]

Geckopelli,
You have to understand that most scripture is written so that it can be understood fairly easily. An intelligent god is a much easier concept to understand than many others. It is obvious that blind belief in god is only sentimentalism, but an intuitive understanding of such concepts can be gained by following the proper procedures and being open-minded. If one's intuition can be verified by another, is it not, to an extent, much like a science?

[geckopelli]

Not at all.
Two people intuitively being wrong is still wrong.

Better to seek the question than to assume the answer.

Scriptures were written by the ignorant (no matter there relative wisdom at the time) for the ignorant.

They were originally an attempt to explain that wich the explainers did not understand themselves.

Faith is blind to the truth of the reality all around us.

If there is a "god", it will never come to light as long as religion pretends to KNOW.

The relgious, with few exceptions, fear and despise anyone who tries to make a resonable inquiry in to the matter of god's existence. And with good reason. There faith IS blind, and they would argue the existence of something they can't even define.

[Jedi]

Dose antiquity equal validation? I submit that your "sages" of the past were fools who filled the gaps in there knowledge expediently.
Why do you insult religious scriptures like that, no one is asking you to believe in them, but you insult them..

Did you even read my post entirely? or do you plan to selectively read all your life and take what you think will prove your point? For something to be true, you have to take it as it is... if you have called everyone a fool and think you are only right and if you take the evidence and hide it from yourself and say there is no evidence, then there is no talking to you.

Heck, there is no reason to discuss this matter here with you because for you O great geckopelli, everyone is a fool... acceptable and GOOD BYE. It was my mistake to try to give another point of view here.. pleases continue to bash every religion that you come across I am sure that will keep your egotism up and running. I for one am not going to sit here and read stupid comments being made about my religion.

[geckopelli]

And I'll not sit here while you misrepresent your religion as Reality.

And I guess you proved the point about the religious propensity to cry offense at any question. You got no answers so question scare the crap out of you.
Typical.

Adios, chicito.

Come back when you have the strentgh of your convictions.

[Jedi]

And I'll not sit here while you misrepresent your religion as Reality.

And I guess you proved the point about the religious propensity to cry offense at any question. You got no answers so question scare the crap out of you.
Typical.

Adios, chicito.

Come back when you have the strentgh of your convictions.What questions? from your comments about "they are ignorant" , you don't seem to give me any examples... you have no slightest idea about what you are talking about.

Give me an example of what sage is ignorant? Vasistha? valmiki? Vedavyas ? Sukadeva? you dont have to know about them,

tell me what is so ignorant in the 23 psalm in the chrisitian bible? with out any research and with nothing but your own perceptions- you say they are ignorant- there is no God ... thats just foolish.

A Dios!- funny huh? you used it too, I am sure you will say "Oh God!" when your pissed off.

I have enough strength in my understanding, you see it as if it is a religion, I see it as a way of life. I don't impose that my religion is the truth. I am trying to say here that the essential factor of all religions- that which talks of the supreme is the truth... try to stretch your mind to something else than the opinionated direction you are trying to pull it (or are helplessly pulled by your own ego perhaps?) .

[Razorofoccam]

Also

That we are ALL ignorant.
Of just about everything..

To become less ignorant.

Some say reason/logic/method is the way.
While some rely on human feeling and Connectedness with reality.
On meditation and deep links with a creator that reason cannot yet see if it exists. Another way.

On the issue of the existence of a god.
Be it the god descibed by religion or a creator that we cannot describe.

The only method that any can use without a lifetime of commitment.
Ie: an alternative to believing on faith. A religion.
IS reason/logic/method.

IT says that we cannot say if ANY description of god is accurate to reality.
however.. it also says.
many of the great wise humans of our history.
Were also religious humans.
A perfect example is einstein.
A man of god...Yet a unveiler of hidden truth.
A wise man
He saw in conceptual dimensions both physical and moral.
He is the 'man' because. He was the most physically meek.
And able to define the inner wokings or reality.
He abhored violence.
Promoted understanding.

But all the answers so far are of the physical. How atom A reacts with atom B
All, seems to occam to be indeterminate. Unresolved.

To occam religion is a result of a wordless feeling that someone is setting the rules.
Individual stories are all wrong. But there IS something setting the rules.

What that is... we are too stupid to understand. [yet]


Occam

[geckopelli]

Your sages were ignorant of the fundemental aspects of Reality. They believed in magic.

They made up stories to explain life, the universe, and everything.

You believe those stories without reason, and you doubt them so much you try to hide them in logic.
--------
Of course I use the word "God". I speak english. Sometimes it's an good swear word. Christ!

While you're standing on your feet of clay, you might notice YOUR ignorance is showing.

Present your religion as religon- if you really believe it.

[nephthys]

"Not at all.
Two people intuitively being wrong is still wrong."

But if many scientists are logically right, it should carry a stronger weight? :)

"Scriptures were written by the ignorant (no matter there relative wisdom at the time) for the ignorant."

How could you possibly know this, my dear?

"The relgious, with few exceptions, fear and despise anyone who tries to make a resonable inquiry in to the matter of god's existence. And with good reason. There faith IS blind, and they would argue the existence of something they can't even define."

My child, you speak of the religious as if there were in thousands. In reality there are very few who are truly religious and those of us who are, understand what has to be understood. We don't try to argue about anything's existence; what we know is for us to know and if we know wrong, but it still makes us far happier than you could possibly imagine, why should we be worried? We don't want to impose our religion on you but we want you to be open-minded, for your own good. It doesn't harm us. Try to understand what you truly believe and not just what your conscious mind has conditioned you to believe. After doing that ou still don't believe in god? Well neither do I, but its the byproduct that matters... :)

[Jedi]

Your sages were ignorant of the fundemental aspects of Reality. They believed in magic.

They made up stories to explain life, the universe, and everything.

You believe those stories without reason, and you doubt them so much you try to hide them in logic.
--------
Of course I use the word "God". I speak english. Sometimes it's an good swear word. Christ!

While you're standing on your feet of clay, you might notice YOUR ignorance is showing.

Present your religion as religon- if you really believe it.HELLO!??!

Knock knock, who's there?

Are you trying to explain to me about logic? sigh! All you do is just bash and bash and bash say they are all ignorant and made up stories and did not prove to you scientifically and you provide no proof...

Nice talking to you... keep on ranting about how God doesn't exist!! I see that whatever I do, you keep saying the same sentences... "Your sages are ignorant" "you are ignorant" and then if some one like einstein comes back and proves it to you then you probably will also say "he is ignorant" , when God himself stands in front of you , you probably will say "he is ignorant' too... there is no reason to discuss anything here, you are absolutely right, God will not exist to you if you think he doesn't exist, but keep one thing in your puny little human mind, that no matter what you think God has existed in the past, God exists now and God will continue to exist after you pass away even if he does not exist to you, he will very well continue to exist with complete independence.

Good night SIR/MA'AM!

[geckopelli]

You know nothing of logic, child.

Nor patience. You would be wise to study the teachings of Jesus.

[nephthys]

Jedi,
You are far too emotional. :)

[Jedi]

Also
To occam religion is a result of a wordless feeling that someone is setting the rules.
Individual stories are all wrong. But there IS something setting the rules.

What that is... we are too stupid to understand. [yet]


OccamI agree with you to some extent, I totally agree with you in that individual stories are just our understanding of what truly happened and I agree with that... however something truly did happen though... thats why they are there and that something was so amazing that they wrote so many stories about it.

Stories about God exist in every culture, its not just a feeling, but it is a hidden reality deep with in our consciousness.
We have the capability to understand it,
All we have to do is revive our true consciousness and when it happens we will understand the truth behind all these religions.

If we just abandon all religions and seek God for only Him then He will reveal himself to us , this is what He himself proclaimed. If we want examples, we can have many-

One would be how his 'son' preferred love or organized religion of early judaism and paganism. Another would be God himself telling us "Abandon all religions and surrender unto me, you will come to me, do not fear" in Bhagavad Gita and you can find references to this with every single one of the religions in the world.

To fight organized religion that is set up in ignorance is one thing, but to claim that there is no God at all is totally different. No one dares to do that because everyone knows deep inside of one that He is there. The people who bring him out become truly great- Take Martin Luther king for example... and he is very religious. Another example would be Mahatma Gandhi. One more example would be the ancient enlightened ones like moses or the early modern sufi saints.

These great people are great because they realise their true nature and submit to his supreme power and convert their minds from the unnatural "me, mine , I want this, thats mine! war , evil" mode to the natural "we , us friends, brothers, peace! happiness" mode...

I am not saying that you cannot be good with being an "Atheist" , you can, but if you continue to be good and an atheist, even if you don't agree on the outside, on your inside you will finally come to terms and say "Okay fine God, here you are , so what was your deal of hiding yourself?"

[Jedi]

Jedi,
You are far too emotional. :)
Well its not like I want to be emotional , but when you see people just bashing everyone who believes in a supreme being to build their own ego and false sense of intelligence, it makes something really strong come out from inside of you... you might be able to control it neophythys, but I don't... I say whatever comes to my mind if it is right.

[Razorofoccam]

I agree with you to some extent, I totally agree with you in that individual stories are just our understanding of what truly happened and I agree with that... however something truly did happen though... thats why they are there and that something was so amazing that they wrote so many stories about it.

Stories about God exist in every culture, its not just a feeling, but it is a hidden reality deep with in our consciousness.
We have the capability to understand it,
All we have to do is revive our true consciousness and when it happens we will understand the truth behind all these religions.

If we just abandon all religions and seek God for only Him then He will reveal himself to us , this is what He himself proclaimed. If we want examples, we can have many-

One would be how his 'son' preferred love or organized religion of early judaism and paganism. Another would be God himself telling us "Abandon all religions and surrender unto me, you will come to me, do not fear" in Bhagavad Gita and you can find references to this with every single one of the religions in the world.

To fight organized religion that is set up in ignorance is one thing, but to claim that there is no God at all is totally different. No one dares to do that because everyone knows deep inside of one that He is there. The people who bring him out become truly great- Take Martin Luther king for example... and he is very religious. Another example would be Mahatma Gandhi. One more example would be the ancient enlightened ones like moses or the early modern sufi saints.

These great people are great because they realise their true nature and submit to his supreme power and convert their minds from the unnatural "me, mine , I want this, thats mine! war , evil" mode to the natural "we , us friends, brothers, peace! happiness" mode...

I am not saying that you cannot be good with being an "Atheist" , you can, but if you continue to be good and an atheist, even if you don't agree on the outside, on your inside you will finally come to terms and say "Okay fine God, here you are , so what was your deal of hiding yourself?"
Jedi

And what of occam who is no atheist.
But says that through methods other than any belief in a god.
We as people can make a world of , quote you.
"we , us friends, brothers, peace! happiness"
An through THAT. And the reason that allows it.
We become a race that CAN answer questions about a creator/director.
[ a god if you will]
Occam says we must become rational FIRST. [as a race]
Then have underanding.
Not the reverse.

The only racial understanding we have on any mater not emotive/survival..
IS through rational method.
We gained most of that in the last 50 years.
That shows you how fast we are learning.
We have gained more understanding of the workings of reality in the last 50 years than all human history before that.
What will we understand in another hundred?
Much..
And will we bicker and kill over it. yes.
Reason must become the way of society.
Not just societies ability to define reality.
Reason working with emotion.
The engine and the steering.
Ability and Desire. [desire is not a dirty word]
In Unity

What is most important to occam's neighbour?
Who won the football game yesterday.
What is most important to occam?
Well he told that in another post...
But for our race..
'that we do not kill ourselves with our new understanding.'

Occam

[geckopelli]

Well its not like I want to be emotional , but when you see people just bashing everyone who believes in a supreme being to build their own ego and false sense of intelligence, it makes something really strong come out from inside of you... you might be able to control it neophythys, but I don't... I say whatever comes to my mind if it is right.
That only bashing is you on me. The only ego is your insecure one.

I demand rigorous explanation from anyone who pretends there religion is scientific- and so far pretend is all you've done. Same for those who claim god-inspired science.

It may be tough for you to face, But I understand religion (and it use and uses) far, far better than you. You would label me an atheist with your pen of self-righteous indignation, yet never inquire about the truth.

You're mistaking your opinion for the Common Reality.

Time to open your mind, grasshopper.

[Jedi]

Jedi

And what of occam who is no atheist.
But says that through methods other than any belief in a god.
We as people can make a world of , quote you.
"we , us friends, brothers, peace! happiness"
An through THAT. And the reason that allows it.
We become a race that CAN answer questions about a creator/director.
[ a god if you will]
Occam says we must become rational FIRST. [as a race]
Then have underanding.
Not the reverse.

The only racial understanding we have on any mater not emotive/survival..
IS through rational method.
We gained most of that in the last 50 years.
That shows you how fast we are learning.
We have gained more understanding of the workings of reality in the last 50 years than all human history before that.
What will we understand in another hundred?
Much..
And will we bicker and kill over it. yes.
Reason must become the way of society.
Not just societies ability to define reality.
Reason working with emotion.
The engine and the steering.
Ability and Desire. [desire is not a dirty word]
In Unity

What is most important to occam's neighbour?
Who won the football game yesterday.
What is most important to occam?
Well he told that in another post...
But for our race..
'that we do not kill ourselves with our new understanding.'

Occam
I completely agree with you, we must first unify ourselves into one race, but to do that we have to find something in common, the best way to do it is through God realization. With God realization, everything can be solved.

If through realizing God characters like Martin Luther king, Buddha-(yes he realized God in impersonal nature- everything he teaches is from hinduism), Christ, Shankara, Chaitanya, the sufi saints , Baha u llah, Gandhi, Ramanuja, Vivekananda and many many more around the world came about, then imagine how it must be if everyone was God realized.

it can happen, the only way to beat evil is from with in one self because the only devil really to worry about is the treacherous one that roams in the dark corners of our hearts. We have to try to fight that and bring the true God with in us out... thats one of the best ways to unity , Occam.

[Jedi]

That only bashing is you on me. The only ego is your insecure one.

I demand rigorous explanation from anyone who pretends there religion is scientific- and so far pretend is all you've done. Same for those who claim god-inspired science.

It may be tough for you to face, But I understand religion (and it use and uses) far, far better than you. You would label me an atheist with your pen of self-righteous indignation, yet never inquire about the truth.

You're mistaking your opinion for the Common Reality.

Time to open your mind, grasshopper.
First of all, I have an ego, but not as big as yours. Mine is a very insecure one, thank you very much and will rein like fire if some one says something totally ignorant while acting all "wise" .

I don't have to argue with you about anything, I am not trying to prove anything to you, I am enraged by the fact that you can call everything there is "crap" just to keep yourself feeling "wise" in your own eyes.

You know about religion?!- HA! I bet you didn't even make atleast one honest to any religion, let alone christianity.
If you think christianity, judaism, Islam are all wrong and BS why don't you go and try Bahai faith? or Buddhism? or Hinduism? How about sikhism? Jainism? Zorastranianism? Taoism?

Why don't you give them all an honest try before saying "I know religion much better than you", if you are older than me that does not make you wiser! and whats with that comments like Grasshopper and child? - I am not going to fall for those tricks. Just keep one thing in mind, in here you and me are always EQUAL.

Time to open your own eyes .

[geckopelli]

Jedi.

Don't dump your insecurity on me.

Ego is not my problem. Niethier is ignorance.

And although I will defend your political equality with arms if need be, in General Knowledge I am much your superior-youngster!

Back before you were a glimmer in your mom's eye I was 18 and "young enough to know everything"- kinda like you.
And I BEGAN a 30 year, ONGOING, study of religions and philosophies (Attend! Many of the "religions" you mention are Philosophies- NOT religions). So don't think an article or two makes you an authority.
Age dose not bring wisdom; nor does insecurity, youth, and ignorance.
Wisdom is begat by Knowledge and Experience.
---

And don't give me no more, "just because your older" crap.
Maybe you ought to get around the hip forums a little more.

Geckopelli is well know as an ally of the young- here and in Real Space.

Now stop wallowing in the insecurity of your beliefs and step up to the task that has been laid before you.

I'm talking about Life.

[Jedi]

Jedi.

Don't dump your insecurity on me.

Ego is not my problem. Niethier is ignorance.

And although I will defend your political equality with arms if need be, in General Knowledge I am much your superior-youngster!

Back before you were a glimmer in your mom's eye I was 18 and "young enough to know everything"- kinda like you.
And I BEGAN a 30 year, ONGOING, study of religions and philosophies (Attend! Many of the "religions" you mention are Philosophies- NOT religions). So don't think an article or two makes you an authority.
Age dose not bring wisdom; nor does insecurity, youth, and ignorance.
Wisdom is begat by Knowledge and Experience.
---

And don't give me no more, "just because your older" crap.
Maybe you ought to get around the hip forums a little more.

Geckopelli is well know as an ally of the young- here and in Real Space.

Now stop wallowing in the insecurity of your beliefs and step up to the task that has been laid before you.

I'm talking about Life.See you just prove my point. You are "superior" to me in your eyes because you think you are more experienced than I . Well, let me tell you, there was once a man, who was in existence before even you or probably your dad or my grandfather was in existence. He began the study of religions when he was only 10 and continued to study religion. He then accepted a guru, studied religion with him and then came to America in 1960s . He was enlightened when he was 80 years old- thats twice your age and He explained to the hippie crazed one side, conservative another side and feminists on the other, what real enlightenment is.

He was so pure that he did not care for his body which was 80 years old, he did not care he had two heart attacks. He simply depended on the almighty and served his God in the last 12 years of his life.

He created many temples for his God, He made people come out of ignorance, He converted drug addicts into healthy human beings and he taught a pure way of life. His name is Srila prabhupada and He is much more wiser than you.

I might not be wise, but the words that are his (some anyway) are definitely the wisest. He was beyond our comprehension, he taught a new logic, a new peaceful and safe approach to life.

His words are divine in that they are pure. Purity and chastisity and truth are needed to be wise enough to understand religion. You do not need mundane studies made on them, they will be completely useless I am sorry to say.

You may be knowing the facts, but you do not know the essence of their words, so whats the point of doing a 30 year study or a million year study huh?

[Razorofoccam]

I completely agree with you, we must first unify ourselves into one race, but to do that we have to find something in common, the best way to do it is through God realization. With God realization, everything can be solved.

If through realizing God characters like Martin Luther king, Buddha-(yes he realized God in impersonal nature- everything he teaches is from hinduism), Christ, Shankara, Chaitanya, the sufi saints , Baha u llah, Gandhi, Ramanuja, Vivekananda and many many more around the world came about, then imagine how it must be if everyone was God realized.

it can happen, the only way to beat evil is from with in one self because the only devil really to worry about is the treacherous one that roams in the dark corners of our hearts. We have to try to fight that and bring the true God with in us out... thats one of the best ways to unity , Occam.
Jedi

It is interesting. Who are "Christ, Shankara, Chaitanya, the sufi saints , Baha u llah, Gandhi, Ramanuja, Vivekananda and many many more" ?

You define them as 'god realised'
Yet to occam their wisdom, their 'abillity' to be so god realised.
And with the buddhist. Not a god as deity.
Occam might call them 'rational beings' ??
Your 'god realised' = occam's 'rational being'.

Occam could say that " imagine if everyone were rational"
[as our race is NOT]
That we loved, felt , desired. With compassion and also will.
But used reason as the way to achieve this.
Not emotion itself [most of human history]

Yes..unity/ballance of mind and feeling occam thinks..Is the next step.
Our world is as it is today. Through 5%reason, that has allowed our technological society, and 95% emotion/desire.

And that imballance is the problem

Occam

[Jedi]

Jedi

It is interesting. Who are "Christ, Shankara, Chaitanya, the sufi saints , Baha u llah, Gandhi, Ramanuja, Vivekananda and many many more" ?

You define them as 'god realised'
Yet to occam their wisdom, their 'abillity' to be so god realised.
And with the buddhist. Not a god as deity.
Occam might call them 'rational beings' ??
Your 'god realised' = occam's 'rational being'.

Occam could say that " imagine if everyone were rational"
[as our race is NOT]
That we loved, felt , desired. With compassion and also will.
But used reason as the way to achieve this.
Not emotion itself [most of human history]

Yes..unity/ballance of mind and feeling occam thinks..Is the next step.
Our world is as it is today. Through 5%reason, that has allowed our technological society, and 95% emotion/desire.

And that imballance is the problem

Occam
Well said sir!, I totally agree with you. You can call them rational beings or self- realized.. it is the same thing, because God is the most logical person there is.

With that said, I totally agree with you on the fact that there is too much desire in this world and its true. Most people in today's world are greedy, they cheat others, they want too much power and mostly almost everyone is unhappy and confused. We have to stop it and best way to do it is evolving into rational or God realized beings .

[StonerBill]

waht the fuck? you guys write too much! make a book or something.

[geckopelli]

Jedi,

Don't condem yourself to only dead words from a dead man.

The world is a living place.

Is you god dead and/or stagnant?

The Universe is a ever-evolving thing. Has your god been left in the dust?

Still, you've never explained your need to present your religion as empirical fact. Can you?

[Jedi]

Jedi,

Don't condem yourself to only dead words from a dead man.

The world is a living place.

Is you god dead and/or stagnant?

The Universe is a ever-evolving thing. Has your god been left in the dust?

Still, you've never explained your need to present your religion as empirical fact. Can you?
Listen , I dont' have to tell you anything, because before i even start explaining you started with "your sages are ignorant" crap. So even before hearing , knowing anything you have this mentality that everything that is something you do not expect is "crap", Go ahead , think what you want, but if people thought the same way like you did, the world would be such a sad hopeless place.

[geckopelli]

jedi,

Ah, but there would be no murder in the name of religion...
Knowledge would be freely shared...

And poser christians wouldn't have to hide thier doubts behind False Science.
----
Your lack of conviction is showing.

Trade your bible in for a copy of Origin of the Spiecies.

[Razorofoccam]

Occam realises that that theremay be a god.
Thus he is 'god realised'

This is what reason allows.
Realisation of the 'actual' possibillity.
'factual'
On the existence of a god.

This IS because reality shows indicative evidence to support such.
No Thing exists...Because we want it to.
[thus marginalising 98% of all human religion]

Occam

That is.. Heaven and hell ar to occam no more real that valhalla.
But the wisdom of the great theologians is wisdom.
Who defines a wisdom is irrelevent.
Be it physicist, philosopher or priest.

What is wisdom. ?
That which works to our personal and racial benefit.
That resolves problems/conflict.
That leads to happiness.

[Jedi]

wow, very nicely said. :D ,but another way to look this would be - We have to give up all these things and concentrate on the supreme, then alone can we achieve Him.

I want to end my time here with that :)

[Razorofoccam]

wow, very nicely said. :D ,but another way to look this would be - We have to give up all these things and concentrate on the supreme, then alone can we achieve Him.

I want to end my time here with that :)
Jedi..
Occam thinks that there is direction.
Be that a 'supreme' ,? well who knows.?
Especially none of us.

Why do we have reason.?
Maybe to use it to find 'god'
Maybe god gave us reason to do JUST THAT.

And agnosticism, is our current place on the road to doing..JUST THAT.

If this is your last post on this thread... then well met my friend.

Occam