ATHEISTS Are Narrow Minded.

[MORON]

summary blah blah blah....I'm confused (sorry, but all our arguements are all over the place....)

Secondly, the question of from where did these moral codes originate remains. This cannot be easily answered if you reject the notion of a higher power.

They are the manfestations of our build in emotions, sometimes combined with primative logic.

Those emotions come from evolutionary need.

Thirdly, through what mechanisms did these moral codes spread?

Forthly, how did people select among these codes?

Social darwinism

Again, if these feelings didn't originate from inside societies they must originate from outside? Where?

Doesn't it seem weird that all people shares a same set of emotions and expressions displaying them? Parts of it is genetic. (and parts of it is social indeed, but not all)

I don't think irrationality is an explanation for double standards

...hmmm Anyway double standards is rational if the person can justified it rationally, and it is possible. Just see yourself as different, and there is no proof you aren't.

Using the murder analogy, murderers may very will cease to feel any moral impulse against killing after murdering many, many people.

And don't this happen in real life?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MORON
English langrage is annoying...... (damn, some one give me a definition plz....)

Definition of anthropocentric? Human-centered; in this case, morality does not exist without humans to create it.

A stance against hypocracy is morality. Without this faith, there is no rational reason to see other like oneself and therefore apply and rules that might concern other's well being and such.

The belief is not "A stance against hypocricy is a stance for morality," the belief is "A stance against hypocricy is a stance for logic and rationality." The applicable beliefs are "In order to be rational, one must be consistent in one's beliefs," and "In order to be rational, one must be logical in one's beliefs;" if somebody contradicts themself then they are illogical and/or irrational. The slaveholder can say "I am inherently superior to this slave because I have received more education," but his justification fails the test for logic and he is thus irrational; "I have recieved more education" does not logically equate to "I am inherently superior."

If oneself believes others aren't like themself (no proof that you, technophile, exist) than no morality could exist.

Yes, if somebody is completely irrational then it is difficult if not impossible for them to behave morally.

Not really, since slaves usually have no education grew up in worst conditions, and as a result is inferior to their owers in many ways (things like intellect).

The slaveholder might mistake the true statement that "I am better educated than my slave" for the false statement "I am inherently intellectually superior to my slave" because he has not been provided with any evidence that would demonstrate that his apparent intellectual superiority is not inherent. However, when a freed black man is educated and demonstrates remarkable intelligence (Frederick Douglas comes to mind) then the slaveholder's justification is demonstrably incorrect.

As a result, one can argue that slaveholders could give them a better life (and it has shown during civil war's era, slaves are often wealthier than unskilled labor, and certainly wealthier than unempolyed...though this could be some propoganda.....)

One can indeed argue this, but it doesn't justify the slaveholders' actions as moral; if I intentionally harm somebody but unintentionally benefit that person as a side effect, then my intent was to harm and my action was still immoral.

As for freedom, one can argue freedom is not necessary and order is often more important, as parents and MTG and Ming have shown us again and again. You can also get for the good of the masses arguement....control is more productive theory. (and thus another unresolved debate....)

Not every moral debate needs to be resolved in order for morality to be objective; Godel proved that it is not always possible to prove the truth. All that is required is that every moral debate be resolvable in principle; two people with a rational conflict in belief could argue to a consensus, and somebody presenting an irrational conflict in belief is demonstrably irrational (and it is meaningless to argue with somebody who is irrational, since argumentation presupposes that both parties are rational reciprocal discursive agents).

As I said, humans are naturally stupid, and idealism does not reflect reality. Morality hardly ever follows rational analysis.....

Rational analysis is not required to settle every single instance of moral conflict; if I previously have come to the conclusion that murder is unjustifiable, then I needn't analyze every single situation in which I have the capability of committing murder. The "ingrained" ethical beliefs in most of us ("Lying is wrong," "Murder is wrong," "Theft is wrong," etc.) are based in rational analysis; we are told at childhood "Murder is wrong," and we accept this statement because it is internally consistent, but if our parents say "Do this because I say so" then we do not accept the statement because it is illogical, unjustified, etc. Kids aren't just blank slates that can be filled with any kind of gibberish; they question, they analyze, and they rebel.

And thus you are by convensional definition amoral. You are merely rational.

I am immoral and irrational if I cannot offer a justification for why I should be allowed to murder somebody. "Because it benefits me" is only sufficient if I would be willing to be murdered by somebody else if it benefitted them.

And another group that kills only outsiders.
Oops, did I talk about the real world again?

Define "outsider" in this example. Is it "somebody who can be justified to be inherently inferior," is it "somebody who is an immediate threat to our survival," or is it "somebody whose death is convenient"?

[Ramo]

Going to bed...

They are the manfestations of our build in emotions, sometimes combined with primative logic.
Those emotions come from evolutionary need.

Ermm.. what? Explain.

Social darwinism

Social darwinism is the assumption that that smart people end up rich and stupid people end up poor. How does this assumption have to deal with the UR's question?

Doesn't it seem weird that all people shares a same set of emotions and expressions displaying them?

How does "emotion" have to do with anything?

And don't this happen in real life?

Doesn't what happen in real life?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ramo
Using the murder analogy, murderers may very will cease to feel any moral impulse against killing after murdering many, many people.

Yes, but the question is: are they immoral, and why?

You stated that there was an objective morality. Then there must be an objective system of justification; the system you describe is subjective.

Why is it subjective, because over time societies place more or less emphasis on conflicting goods? The system of morality is capable of objectively recognizing that "Societal stability" and "Individual rights" are "good" things, and it is up to a society, a group of moral agents, to find a working balance between the two goods. Different societies will come to different conclusions based on their needs and histories, but each society's moral code can be objectively judged; if one society's moral code has neither stability nor individual rights, for instance, then it is an invalid moral code because it has failed to incorporate either of the objective goods.

Autocracy was justified by concentration of wealth and power. Might makes right, and so forth.

People were and always have been capable of living in safety without coercive authority.

Some lords used the "might makes right" justification in order to coerce their authority, and they were immoral. However, autocracy does not equate to coercive authority (though it often does): the Roman Republic would appoint a dictator in times of war because they felt that sacrificing rights was necessary for preserving the state. They submitted themselves to the autocrat, much as serfs submitted themselves to an autocrat for protection.

The very nature of feudalism entailed theft and murder from the serfs...

It entailed taxes, yes, but seeing as how most modern governments also tax their citizens I don't think that it's entirely fair to call it theft when done by a feudal lord. As for murder, I hardly see murder as a necessity for feudalism; what, did the feudal lords need to make human sacrifices to maintain their authority? If you mean that some (perhaps many) feudal lords abused their authority, then I hardly think that this means that the entire system was "immoral," any more than the fact that many republics have corruption vilifies republicanism as a form of government.

Actually, they weren't. Central governments had cannon (and were only able to have cannon, due to the cost), meaning the fortesses of feudal lords were no longer barriers to centralization. Conversely, common people were able to operate guns, and the knight was obselete.

I was thinking of the later middle ages, when the middle class was beginning to form and the barbarians were long gone, not the renaissaince when knights became obsolete.

Again, the change from feudalism to centralization was a case of might makes right, not due to philosophy.

The fact that feudalism had lost its base of support (due to the fact that it was no longer necessary) also played a role in the change from feudalism to centralization. The American Revolution was won from the barrels of muskets and rifles, but the change was precipitated and supported because of changes in political philosophy.

[Ramo]

Yes, but the question is: are they immoral, and why?

Yes, murder is immoral. Why? Because coercion is immoral. Why? Because I say so. I don't presume to believe in an absolute/objective morality.

Why is it subjective, because over time societies place more or less emphasis on conflicting goods?

No, simply because the rules of logic say only self-contradictory systems aren't logically justified. To go further than that, one relies upon assumptions.

The system of morality is capable of objectively recognizing that "Societal stability" and "Individual rights" are "good" things,

How?

It entailed taxes, yes, but seeing as how most modern governments also tax their citizens I don't think that it's entirely fair to call it theft when done by a feudal lord.

I am an anarchist, ya know.

As for murder, I hardly see murder as a necessity for feudalism

Murder in the sense of sending them off to war to increase the lord's power or prestige (yes, an analogy can be made to the draft).

I was thinking of the later middle ages, when the middle class was beginning to form and the barbarians were long gone, not the renaissaince when knights became obsolete.

Ok... I don't see your point though...

due to the fact that it was no longer necessary

Feudalism was never necessary.

The American Revolution was won from the barrels of muskets and rifles, but the change was precipitated and supported because of changes in political philosophy.

Again, I don't see your point. My objection to your quote was historical accuracy, I didn't actually see what you were getting at...

[Ramo]

They submitted themselves to the autocrat, much as serfs submitted themselves to an autocrat for protection.

That simply wasn't true. The serfs were tied to the land. This wasn't a consentual deal.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
So, if morality is not absolute, there would be several competing sets of moral codes all exist at the same time, all originated from one or more sources independent of humans.

I don't see why they are independent of humans. Don't humans have different inclinations? Aren't humans capable of having different opinions?

First of all, that doesn't seem likely. Most people in the same society have more or less the same set of moral codes.

Tell that to libertarians and liberal democrats; they'll be pleased to know that they have the same set of moral codes.

For example, not a whole lot of people objected when witches were burnt at stake. In fact, common folk used to watch this sort of thing as entertainment.

I'm not so sure if "not a lot of people objected" is an accurate portrayal. In Germany especially entire towns were practically wiped out by overzealous inquisitors; if the inquisitors are burning everybody that disagrees with them and they have the power to do so, then you keep quiet and hope that they pass by.

Secondly, the question of from where did these moral codes originate remains. This cannot be easily answered if you reject the notion of a higher power.

They primarily originated from the fact that humans are social animals; in order to socialize humans needed to behave reciprocally, and as an inter-societal dynamic arose (when the need to deal with other tribes became necessary) then the reciprocal behavior had to be logically extended to all humans, not just those within the society.

Thirdly, through what mechanisms did these moral codes spread?

Different societies came into contact and sometimes engaged in communicative action. Ideas have a way of spreading, especially when the ideas that one society has are fairly similar to the ideas that another society has (since societies living in the same vicinity probably developed similar moral codes in order to maintain themselves).

Forthly, how did people select among these codes?

Some codes didn't make any sense, some codes functioned better than others.

Again, if these feelings didn't originate from inside societies they must originate from outside? Where?

I said that morality is anthropocentric, Human-Centered. They originated from inside societies.

Feelings provoked by certain events are not fixed, they are the results of complicated interactions.

I agree. You might find broccoli to be delicious, for example, but I can't stand the stuff. This doesn't mean that we disagree over the term "delicious," this means that what you find to be delicious is not always in accordance with what I find to be delicious. However, there are limits to what either of us can find delicious, based on our ability to justify ourselves: you may say "Broccoli is delicous because it has a pleasant taste," while I may say "Broccoli is not delicious because it's taste is too strong." However, Wiglaf were to say "Broken glass is delicious because it tastes terrible and will painfully kill me," then he is objectively incorrect in his use of the term.

BTW, I wasn't begging the question

You're right. You were putting the cart before the horse.

We think it's immoral. People then saw it otherwise. This just further supports the point that morality is relative and evolves with time.

People then were incorrect, and demonstrably so. The moral code has not changed: the "moral" slaveholder treated Whites reciprocally. When it was demonstrated that Blacks were not inferior to Whites then the slaveholders revised their definitions of who is and who is not a human (and therefore who must be treated reciprocally).

Morality is just a standard by which people of a society judge what actions are right and what actions are wrong.

Were the Nazis moral? According to their standard, what they were doing was right.

I argue that they were irrational in excluding who was to be treated reciprocally and that they were therefore immoral. Would you argue that the Nazis were immoral, and if so, how?

We view slavery is wrong because we all accept the assumption that "all humans are born equal. In a place where such assumption did not exist it does not take a llot to justify the owning of slaves.

They still have to justify why humans are not born equal before they can use the claim to justify owning slaves.

However, this concept is so modern (comparatively speaking) that many places still think that certain persons are subservient to others. Many men still thinks women are subservient to men. Heck, even many women still think that women are subservient to men, just by looking at those who still cling to the code of chivalry.

The concept is not modern; society has always rested on the principles of socialisation and communication, which require that parties presuppose the principle of reciprocity. The exclusions made by some (such as the exclusion of women from having equal rights) are arbitrary and unjustifiable.

Even today in some countries, especially in India where the caste system is very much alive, people are still divided along class lines.

This doesn't make it right. It is also no mistake that as Indians are influenced by Western philosophy it results in the weakening of the caste system, and does not result in the exportation of the caste system to Western society.

You are assuming that the modern Western moral code is the standard by which all other moral codes are judged. Why is this the case?

I do not make so broad an assumption as that; I assume that in order to be moral, humans must treat each other reciprocally (that is, they must adhere to the Golden Rule). This is a justifiable assumption because it is the assumption that every single society has made, in one form or another, in order to come into existence; within any society there are people who engaged in communicative action, and to do so they must treat each other reciprocally. The difference is that many societies make this assumption but do not apply it consistently; somebody will say "I will presuppose that Joe treats me as an equal and that I will do likewise, but Bill can't dance so he is not subject to the same moral code as Joe and I."

Even in the West morality is a wide grey area, covering things such as abortion and capital punishment. There simply isn't a "standard" per se in existence.

There are always going to be disagreements over what is the best balance of goods, because many goods are, to some extent, mutually exclusive; "Individual Rights" and "Societal Stability" are examples of two "good"s that must be balanced, for a society with unchecked individual rights (contracts are not binding, people can shout "fire" in a crowded theater, slander and libel are allowable) there is very little stability while a society with absolute stability (for an extreme case, a society where everybody is chained up) has very little individual freedom. We can objectively assess both "individual rights" and "societal stability" as "good," but we then disagree over what the ideal balance of rights and stability will be. So we decide as a society what the best balance should be, and we change the balance if necessary, but it is not in question that "individual rights" and "societal stability" are both good.

Are you saying that morality is objective or subjective?

Objective. A (moral) society will always recognize that "individual rights" and "societal stability" are good because morality is objective. The society's choice for a particular balance of these goods may change, though, to meet the needs of the society; the amount of "good" that comes from individual rights is not a fixed sum.

I don't think irrationality is an explanation for double standards since invariably the lower standard is applied to the person who holds a double standard. If it's irrationality, why not applying the higher standard to that person himself? As a matter of fact, why not toss a coin and apply the two standards randomly at random intervals?

Contradictions are illogical, and unjustified double standards are contradictory to socialisation. For example, if I am having an argument with somebody and they unjustifiably fail to show me the same level of respect that I show them, then I will cease to have an argument with them; communication requires reciprocity, or it requires justifying the exceptions to reciprocity (maybe somebody doesn't show me the same level of respect because I am not as competent as they are, for example if I am speaking to an expert), and society requires communication. So, if somebody communicates at all, they presuppose reciprocity; they contradict themselves when they fail to unjustifiably extend reciprocity to others. The double standard is irrational because it is inconsistent.

I am not sure whether you are arguing for an objective morality here. It seems that your thoughts were going in one direction, then took a sharp turn over a cliff

My point is not that "every society has the same moral code," my point is that "every society is capable of realizing what the objective 'goods' that it must balance are." We can say that a society is objectively immoral if it blatantly ignores "goods," for example if it unjustifiably determines that the Tsar has powers of life and death over his subjects. So long as two societies recognize the objective goods and so long as two societies do not use extremely different extremes of justification then inter-societal moral conflicts are not intractible.

[loinburger]

Hey, you said you were going to bed!

Originally posted by Ramo
Yes, murder is immoral. Why? Because coercion is immoral. Why? Because I say so. I don't presume to believe in an absolute/objective morality.

Fair enough, I suppose, but if somebody said "I say that murder is justifiable, because I say so," would you say that your disagreement is nothing more than a conflict between the statements "I disapprove of murder, you should do so as well" and "Hooray for murder", or is there more to the disagreeement than a statement of preferences?

No, simply because the rules of logic say only self-contradictory systems aren't logically justified. To go further than that, one relies upon assumptions.

Failure to reciprocate is contradictory with the assumptions that are necessary for communicative action; communication (particularly argumentation) requires reciprocal behavior on the parts of all participants, otherwise the purpose of the communication is defeated. So, anybody who engages in communicative action presupposes reciprocity, and when they fail to apply reciprocity outside of communication or when they argue for a double standard it is a performative contradiction.

How?

Both of these goods are necessary parts of a society; the purpose of society is to protect individual rights and maintain stability, so the existence of a society presupposes that these are goods. Furthermore, the goods are justifiable under the principle of reciprocity.

I am an anarchist, ya know.

Ahhh!

Taxes are part of the conflict between stability and rights: taxes (theoretically) allow a society to maintain itself, but they also deny citizens full rights to their property.

Murder in the sense of sending them off to war to increase the lord's power or prestige (yes, an analogy can be made to the draft).

"Feudalism" does not immediately imply "Offensive war."

Ok... I don't see your point though...

I was justifying what I'd said earlier, about how there was a time when feudalism had outlived its usefulness and was no longer justified. You countered with "Feudalism was unjustified only because might makes right, because the King had the cannons." I specified the time period I was referring to in order to show that feudalism was unjustified in a time when it still had the might to maintain itself.

Feudalism was never necessary.

Ha. Just what I'd expect an anarchist to say.

That simply wasn't true. The serfs were tied to the land. This wasn't a consentual deal.

I'm not a historian, but what I always understood to be the case was that when the Roman empire fell most of Europe was in anarchy, so for protection the serfs congregated under feudal lords (barbarian chieftains) in order to protect themselves from other barbarian chieftains.

[Ramo]

Fair enough, I suppose,

Actually, I didn't mean that. The reason why I think coercion immoral is because I think utilitarianism is a valid system, and the reason why I think utilitarianism is a valid system is because I say so.

or is there more to the disagreeement than a statement of preferences?

Not particularly.

Failure to reciprocate is contradictory with the assumptions that are necessary for communicative action

No assumptions! You lose your objectivity with assumptions.

[Quote] the purpose of society is to protect individual rights and maintain stability[/Qutoe]

Why?

"Feudalism" does not immediately imply "Offensive war."

It could also mean sending off your serfs to get killed to increase you liege's lands or prestige. My point is that serfs were frequently effectively killed by their lords in feudal systems.

I was justifying what I'd said earlier, about how there was a time when feudalism had outlived its usefulness and was no longer justified.

Yeah, I didn't see what you were getting at with this...

I specified the time period I was referring to in order to show that feudalism was unjustified in a time when it still had the might to maintain itself.

Feudalism was never justified! BAH!

I'm not a historian, but what I always understood to be the case was that when the Roman empire fell most of Europe was in anarchy, so for protection the serfs congregated under feudal lords (barbarian chieftains) in order to protect themselves from other barbarian chieftains.

1. Careful how you use the word "anarchy" around an anarchist. Anarchism means "no authority." When your lands are fragmented by warlords, that is not an example of anarchism.
2. In that case, you need a history lesson. The concept of feudalism originated with the Persians and their heavy cavalry - the cataphract, the tank of the era. It was a far more effective defense against the nomadic light horse, but then-contemporary civilization proved difficult to maintain such a force, with their expensive heavy horses, extensive armor, and long training. Then the Parthians came up with a solution - tie villagers to warriors, which proved to be very effective. This concept was later imported by the Byzantines, and from there, rulers in Western Europe. Of course, the very nature of such a system makes it prone to the dissintegration of central authority, so we see so much fragmentation. Anywho, my point is that peasants had no choice.

[Faboba]

Originally posted by devilmunchkin
LIKE THIS FABOBA...
MAN, THIS MAKES ME SOUND LIKE I'M YELLING.

So really you just use lower case cause you're being.... soft-spoken?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ramo
Not particularly.

So if Joe says "Murder is morally correct because I enjoy it, but it is only morally correct for me because while I enjoy killing I do not enjoy being killed," and Bill says "Murder is immoral because I do not wish to be murdered and it is inconsistent for me to apply a double standard," then these justifications are equally valid? Or, if I say "Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time because he scored lots of baskets and was a good team player," and Wiglaf says "My empty beer can is the greatest basketball player of all time because I say so," then these justifications are equally valid?

I argue that not every justification is equally valid, that a consistent justification is more acceptable than an arbitrary justification. Consider the example of children; if you tell a child "Do not steal. You are indignant if somebody steals from you, and so you know that if you steal from somebody else that they would be indignant as well. Because you associate this indignation with "evil," it is therefore evil for you to steal," (perhaps using a truncated argument), then the child will probably accept your justification because it is consistent. However, if you tell a child "Do not steal because I said so," then the child is much less likely to accept your justification because it is arbitrary, especially if the child is old enough to realize that you are not omniscient.

No assumptions! You lose your objectivity with assumptions.

If everybody has made the same assumption then we can base our objectivity on the mutual presupposition. For example, we assume that we are not living in the Matrix, or are not merely illusions, and without this assumption we could not claim very much of anything (statements like "This cup is orange," "My mother is female," and "We must eat to stay alive" are called into question). If someone makes a statement like "We do not exist" then this is a performative contradiction; if we do not exist then the statement has no purpose. The person would be contradicting his own assumptions.

We assume that a meter is of a certain length, but after this assumption has been accepted then we can use the meter to objectively measure things. I am 1.82 meters tall right now, accurate to the nearest centimeter. Unless somebody rejects the assumption of the meter's length ("No, the meter is half the length accepted by everybody else"), then my measurement is objectively correct.

the purpose of society is to protect individual rights and maintain stability

If a society does not have some means of stabilizing itself then it will quickly deteriorate, so workable societies must incorporate some stabilizing measures (systems of justice, taxation, whatever--depends on the society and what it requires for stability). As for maintaining individual rights, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, etc. have explained this better than I could hope to. A summary of their arguments is that outside of a society humans have their full assortment of inherent rights (life, liberty, property, etc.), and the purpose to sacrificing rights to form a society is to maintain the rights that have not been sacrificed (for example, individuals may say "We will sacrifice 10% of our property in order to maintain a militia, and this militia will protect our lives, our liberty, and the remaining 90% of our property).

It could also mean sending off your serfs to get killed to increase you liege's lands or prestige. My point is that serfs were frequently effectively killed by their lords in feudal systems.

Yes, I'm not arguing that this never happened, I'm arguing that feudalism does not presuppose that every lord unjustly killed his serfs. There's a difference between a society that cannot exist without human sacrifice, and a society in which human sacrifice may take place. The US government has a draft that can be used to fight unjust wars, but this doesn't mean that living in a republic definitively means that your government will draft people for unjust wars.

Anywho, my point is that peasants had no choice.

Alright, then Feudalism was never justified.

[MORON]

The slaveholder might mistake the true statement that "I am better educated than my slave" for the false statement "I am inherently intellectually superior to my slave"

Didn't see the inherently word....arggggg (brain scrambled)

Anyway, you don't need the the statement "I'am inherently superior" for justification, you only need that "I can manage their lives better"

One can indeed argue this, but it doesn't justify the slaveholders' actions as moral; if I intentionally harm somebody but unintentionally benefit that person as a side effect, then my intent was to harm and my action was still immoral.

But if your attempt is to 'help uncivilized people' it is different.

Define "outsider" in this example. Is it "somebody who can be justified to be inherently inferior," is it "somebody who is an immediate threat to our survival," or is it "somebody whose death is convenient"?

Persons whose genetic material is more different.

People with different ideas (meme....)

I am immoral and irrational if I cannot offer a justification for why I should be allowed to murder somebody.

Morality = Logic

thats what you are getting here...... Because this is saying you are moral if you can offer a justification.

Social darwinism is the assumption that that smart people end up rich and stupid people end up poor. How does this assumption have to deal with the UR's question?

Society with moral codes that help itself = stronger and wipes out other societies.

We can say that a society is objectively immoral if it blatantly ignores "goods,"

What is objective good?

Both of these goods are necessary parts of a society; the purpose of society is to protect individual rights and maintain stability, so the existence of a society presupposes that these are goods. Furthermore, the goods are justifiable under the principle of reciprocity.

Society have a purpose? How do you know?

If everybody has made the same assumption then we can base our objectivity on the mutual presupposition. For example, we assume that we are not living in the Matrix, or are not merely illusions,

How do you know?


IMO Morality = Emotion * (Logic - Stupidlity)

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MORON
Anyway, you don't need the the statement "I'am inherently superior" for justification, you only need that "I can manage their lives better"

Have you given them a choice? No. Would you want a choice if you were in their position? If you do not want somebody else to coercively take your freedom from you, then you cannot justify taking somebody else's freedom from them.

But if your attempt is to 'help uncivilized people' it is different.

There isn't any "help" involved with chaining up humans and denying them opportunity and dignity. "Civilizing" people was not on the minds of the slaveholders; "exploiting" people was their intention.

Persons whose genetic material is more different.

Not valid when it has been demonstrated that these people have the same capacities as you do.

People with different ideas (meme....)

If their ideas are immoral, e.g. "Kill everybody," then the only way to protect yourself may be to fight them. However, you cannot arbitrarily reject somebody's ideas and consider yourself "justified."

Morality = Logic

thats what you are getting here...... Because this is saying you are moral if you can offer a justification.

No, you are moral if you can offer a good justification. "I like to murder but do not enjoy being murdered, therefore I am allowed to murder while others are not" is a justification, but it is an invalid one because you have contradicted your presuppositions by applying a double standard.

It's not all logic, either. Stability and rights are both good, but they are to some extent mutually exclusive; it is to some degree a matter of preference whether somebody is a libertarian or liberal (whether one gives a somewhat greater weighting to rights or to stability). Both the libertarian and the liberal can offer good justifications for their positions.

Society with moral codes that help itself = stronger and wipes out other societies.

This does not work monologically; you cannot justify the claim "Person with moral codes that help him/her = stronger and wipes out everybody else." Societies must interact communicatively just as humans must interact communicatively.

What is objective good?

Something that is justifiably good.

Society have a purpose? How do you know?

We wouldn't have society if it didn't have a purpose.

How do you know?

We might entertain the idea that we are living in the Matrix, or are merely illusions, but we do not base our actions on these concepts and so we presuppose that we exist. For example, if you believed that you were merely an illusion, you wouldn't bother having this conversation; why would you bother doing something that wasn't real? You behave as though you were real, otherwise you don't behave at all--you lapse into severe melancholia or schizophrenia.

IMO Morality = Emotion * (Logic - Stupidlity)

I'm not so sure about the stupidity part, but I agree that emotion plays some part in morality; if we did not feel indignant, we would not have invented the term "evil."

[MORON]

If their ideas are immoral,

Not valid

I'm talking about social dawinism, not theortical morality.

No, you are moral if you can offer a good justification.

If some religious wacko says that pleasure is immoral and all people should suffer, it is not less justifible than the reverse position. Espically if he apply the rules to himself as well.....

At this rate, anything is justifiable if it doesn't violate the double standard thing you set up.

but it is an invalid one because you have contradicted your presuppositions by applying a double standard.

So why is double standards unjustifiable?

you cannot justify the claim "Person with moral codes that help him/her = stronger and wipes out everybody else." Societies must interact communicatively just as humans must interact communicatively.

So? Some people in societies kill each other while others get laid more. If moral codes makes individuals on the whole more effective in reproduction than it would be logical for it to exist.

Something that is justifiably good.

DAMN, thats just restating my question.....

so what is 'GOOD' ?

We wouldn't have society if it didn't have a purpose.

Its a description of a collective of humans, not something man deliberately made.

If you do not want somebody else to coercively take your freedom from you, then you cannot justify taking somebody else's freedom from them.

So does that mean I can spam the forums now?

SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM

Is it just me, or your concept of morality is different from what the masses consider to be morality. You are using the word with a different meaning than what is generally accepted.

[Keygen]

Re: ATHEISTS Are Narrow Minded.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I went to church the other day. Boring as hell, almost gothic, the songs were ridiculous, and the priest was a stupid moron. For you narrow minded ones out there, that's enough to walk right out and never go back in - isn't it?

But those open to the teachings of Jesus? Those interested in going beyond the fanatics, the literal? They'll find the true meaning of it all, if they look at what the religious life is all about. I encourage all of you to go to mass, or pick up a Bible - it's a lot deeper than what you'd think it to be after talking with an occasional idiot or two around town.

Atheists are quitters. True believers are those who endure.

You guys beleive what a guy told 2000 years ago and those who took his words after and posibly twisted them to get benefit with higher goal to rule through beleif. That is accually what happened with all monotheistic religions.

The most easy and primitive way to explain things is god(s). Even a little child can write what most religions consider as their holy scripts. God created water, god created animals, god created human

Have you ever seen him or heard him and confirmed that you did and that was no imagination or even maddness?
I beleive the answer is no. Then why should I beleive? Because some people say so? If that is the answer then why did people changed their initial polytheistic beleives to the one and only god?
Isn't closer to the one and only nature which rules according to the scientists? Maybe subconsciously people know the truth...

Have any of you the so called religious studied seriously physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, astronomy, geology, history etc. and reviewed scientists theories regarding how world works? Do so and then I greatly doubt that you will be so sure for the existance of god