ATHEISTS Are Narrow Minded.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MORON
However, many things can be argued both sides factually. That would result in the final solution be tainted with opinion rather than facts.

Consider the example of the term "great" as it applies to basketball players. I may say "Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player because he is a good team player," and you may say "No, Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest basketball player because he is better at scoring baskets." This essentially comes down to a conflict in opinions; I believe that team coordination is more important than the number of points scored by a player, you believe otherwise. Therefore, we do not disagree over what the term "great" as it applies to basketball means, we disagree over how to apply it. "Great" is still an objective term.

However, a third person (for simplicity, let's say that it's Wiglaf) says "My empty soda can is the greatest basketball player of all time because it is made out of aluminum." This is an irrational statement, for being composed of aluminum has no bearing to one's abilities in the game of basketball (in fact, it may hinder one's abilities), so Wiglaf is objectively incorrect in his assessment of his soda can's basketball playing abilities. He has failed to understand the term "great" as it applies to basketball.

Similarly, in your cloning example, the disagreement is over whether human perfection is more or less important than corruption of the human essence. What is not in disagreement is that human perfection is a "good" thing and corruption of the human essence is a "bad" thing, what is in disagreement is the relative weightings that people give to human perfection and corruption of the human essence; somebody in favor of cloning believes that the benefits of human perfection outweigh the ills of corrupting the human essence, and somebody against cloning believes the opposite. Both of these stances is justifiable, so the issue is resolved through popular vote--cultural relativism to determine the relative weightings of the good and bad. However, a society that employs an unjustifiable stance (such as "only blond babies may be cloned") is objectively; there is no way to justify why blond babies are more fit to be cloned than non-blond babies, and so the society's moral code is completely arbitrary, and therefore irrational.

The pro-gun and anti-gun debate boils down to a similar conflict in justifiable beliefs, and a very prevalent one: what are the relative weights that we give to individual rights over the stability of a society? A pro-gun advocate might say "the individuals' right to protect themselves and their families is more important than the societal stability that would result from guns only being in the hands of the police and military," and an anti-gun advocate might say "societal stability trumps the individuals' right in this instance." Both of these opinions are justifiable. However, we can still reject unjustifiable opinions, such as "I think that guns are pretty so I support the 2nd amendment" or "I think that guns are ugly so I am against the 2nd amendment;" these opinions are arbitrary and are therefore irrational.

Besides, gut feelings have more impact on morality than logic for most people. And thus morality considered as a whole must be irrational.

That's begging the question. You assume that "gut feelings" are nothing more the individual expressing his or her preferences; if this were the case then we would all be hedonists, since our impulse is typically to maximize our immediate pleasure.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Does that mean you think that morality exists independent of humans and/or societies? If so, what's the source of said moral code?

"Objective" does not mean "absolute;" morality is still anthropocentric.

I submit that this feelings are the results of socialisation.

That's begging the question. Did socialisation create the feelings, or does socialisation reflect the feelings that are already present? The fact that all currently existing human societies have concepts of good and evil suggests to me that the feelings would be there even if society were not.

We don't keep slaves now, in fact we see slavery is immoral. Ages ago though keeping slaves was seen as a normal thing.

Yes, but a slaveholder's justification for keeping slaves is unjustifiable; "This slave is inferior to me in such a substantive way that I can keep him or her as property and hold their life in my hands" is an extraordinary claim that requires (and lacks) extraordinary justification. Just because something was a "normal thing" does not mean that it was moral; societies are not always correct in what is moral or immoral (for example, Nazi Germany got a bit off track with its moral code).

Therefore morality evolves with the society it's associated with, and these "good" and "evil" feelings are drilled into our heads when we were kids.

The society's definition of "good" and "evil" does evolve, but for any given point in a society's existence that definition may be unjustifiable and thus demonstrably immoral. Other changes are associated with the changes in the society's needs. For example, in a Feudal society it is right and justifiable for a Lord to hold an incredible amount of power over his serfs, for this was the only way for the Lord and serfs to live in a state of relative safety from brigands and rival Lords. However, as society and technology eliminated the need for such a rigid heirarchical structure, the moral code changed because it was no longer justifiable for a Lord to hold so much power over his serfs; the serfs could live in relative safety in a city-state with elected officials, or under a parliament, etc., and these alternate forms of government were more justifiable than an autocracy under the new structure of society.

Another way to look at it is this. There are certain deviant types who thrive on committing acts the average person considers as evil. This means that "good" and "evil" feelings that you associate with morality are not universal, even within any particular society.

Agreed. There is room for individual interpretation within a framework based on the weightings that one person gives to different "good"s and "evil"s. I may value individual rights more or less than the stability of a society, and my intepretations of how good or evil something is will reflect my values. The key is that my interpretations of good and evil must be justified, and this is how "good" and "evil" become objective terms and not relative terms.

Not necessarily irrational. Hypocripsy will do fine as an explanation.

An insufficient one. "I am a hypocrite" is no more of a justification for doing evil than "I am selfish," "I am evil," or "I am composed entirely out of aluminum."

This seems unlikely. For example some societies condone or even encourage the consumption of human flesh. There were also societies where human sacrifices to their gods were a common occurance.

Are these behaviors justifiable? If everybody unquestioningly accepts these behaviors as justified then I would be begging the question to call the behaviors "irrational." If Bobby-Joe says "I killed my brother because Cthulhu told me to," then for all I know Cthulhu really did speak to Bobby-Joe and tell him to kill his brother; Occam's Razor is not necessarily foolproof. However, just because a society is full of people who believe that their gods must be appeased by human sacrifice, it does not mean that their definition of "good" and "evil" fails to be objective; we may not be able to understand their justification as being anything other than arbitrary, but if a society has unarbitrarily convinced itself to make human sacrifices to the gods then so be it.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Sabre2th
After falling asleep three times, I've given up trying to read techno's latest posts.

Thanks for making an attempt, I guess...

Here, I'll give you a summary version:

"I am right. Blah blah blah. So there." See? Irrefutable logic.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why should it be ignored if it's "really just conditioning?" And how do you ignore some of the fundamental aspects of your conditioning?

If I've been conditioned to associate food with the sound of a bell ringing, then when I hear a bell ring my initial impulse will be to think of food.

Similarly, if I've been conditioned not to murder, then when I have an opportunity to murder then my initial impulse will be not to commit murder.

However, if I recognize that I have been conditioned to associate food with the sound of a bell ringing, then when I hear a bell ring I may still have the impulse to think about food, but I will recognize that this impulse is conditioned and so will ignore it so that I can objectively assess the situation; is there any sight, sound, or smell of food? No? Am I hungry? No? Then I can dismiss thoughts of food. Eventually I may even cease to have the impulse to think of food when I hear a bell ring.

Similarly, if I recognize that I have been conditioned not to do murder, then when the opportunity to murder presents itself I will have the impulse not to do murder, but I will recognize that this impulse is conditioned and so will ignore it so that I can objectively assess the situation. If I assess the situation and realize that the rewards of doing murder outweigh the risks, then can you offer me a reason why I should not murder?

Who says what's a rational justification?

I do.

If a justification is not logical, then it is irrational. If, for example, Wiglaf were to say "My soda can is the greatest basketball player of all time because it is made out of aluminum," then he his justification is irrational because there is no logical connection between being a great basketball player and being made out of aluminum.

Yes, that would be one such example, but I was referring to the lack of repricocity between rulers and commoners in general; rulers can get away with theft, murder, etc.

At one time there was a justification for autocracy: it was the only system of government that allowed serfs and Lords to live in a moderately safe society. A Lord who stole and murdered from his serfs would lose their confidence and could no longer be assured of his own personal safety. When society changed so that autocracy was no longer necessary for safety then the Lords were better able to steal and murder (because they had professional armies backing them up), but they could no longer justify their positions of authority.

[Sabre2th]

After falling asleep three times, I've given up trying to read techno's latest posts.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by technophile
So is there no reason for me not to murder somebody if the rewards of murder outweigh the risk of getting caught (if I recognize that "morality" is really just conditioning and can therefore be ignored)?

Suppose there were groups of humans who had no trouble murdering one another and there were groups that had a built-in ban against killing each other. It seems likely that the former groups would be selected against since these groups thinned out rapidly. The latter groups would become bigger and bigger until they wiped out the former groups.

Originally posted by technophile
It is impossible to rationally justify human sacrifice, which is why it is immoral.

Suppose that it were indeed true that forty lives could be saved if one were sacrificed. Is this a good reason for human sacrifice?

[Dimorier Maximus]

You people talk like you died, and then came back to tell people where you went after death. Has anyone here died before?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Suppose there were groups of humans who had no trouble murdering one another and there were groups that had a built-in ban against killing each other. It seems likely that the former groups would be selected against since these groups thinned out rapidly. The latter groups would become bigger and bigger until they wiped out the former groups.

Why would those who were willing and capable of murder prey on one another exclusively when they can just as well (if not more easily) prey on those who are too gullible or ignorant to recognize that the only "justification" not to murder is societal conditioning? The risks associated with killing somebody else with the will to murder would be far greater than the risks associated with killing somebody who was gullible or ignorant. I fail to see how the free-thinkers would thin themselves out faster than they thinned out the gullible/ignorant.

Suppose that it were indeed true that forty lives could be saved if one were sacrificed. Is this a good reason for human sacrifice?

It would be a good reason for martyrdom, but not for sacrifice. In order to take another's life for your benefit you would have to justify that your life was worth more than the one being sacrificed.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
You people talk like you died, and then came back to tell people where you went after death. Has anyone here died before?

I don't believe in an afterlife, and I'm not a robotic zombie ninja (which is like a zombie ninja only it shoots missiles). So no, as far as I know I have not died before.

[Dimorier Maximus]

Originally posted by technophile
I don't believe in an afterlife, and I'm not a robotic zombie ninja (which is like a zombie ninja only it shoots missiles). So no, as far as I know I have not died before.

But I thought that's what a technophile was?

[MORON]

"Objective" does not mean "absolute;" morality is still anthropocentric.

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

An insufficient one. "I am a hypocrite" is no more of a justification for doing evil than "I am selfish," "I am evil," or "I am composed entirely out of aluminum."

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.

Values are subjective, yet the rational steps to expand that to all humans is what technophile calls morality. However the reasons behind the rational steps is because of the faith against hypocracy. (treating others different from self) If oneself believes others aren't like themself (no proof that you, technophile, exist) than no morality could exist.

Yes, but a slaveholder's justification for keeping slaves is unjustifiable; "This slave is inferior to me in such a substantive way that I can keep him or her as property and hold their life in my hands" is an extraordinary claim that requires (and lacks) extraordinary justification.

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). 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.....)

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....)

. I may value individual rights more or less than the stability of a society, and my intepretations of how good or evil something is will reflect my values. The key is that my interpretations of good and evil must be justified, and this is how "good" and "evil" become objective terms and not relative terms.

societies are not always correct in what is moral or immoral

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

Did socialisation create the feelings, or does socialisation reflect the feelings that are already present?

Both and add that with social darwinism.

If I assess the situation and realize that the rewards of doing murder outweigh the risks, then can you offer me a reason why I should not murder?

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

Suppose there were groups of humans who had no trouble murdering one another and there were groups that had a built-in ban against killing each other.

And another group that kills only outsiders.

Oops, did I talk about the real world again?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
But I thought that's what a technophile was?

Maybe you're thinking of a necrophile, somebody who loves dead people, or a robot zombie ninja, who is an undead ninja who has been given robotic appendages by a mad scientist (or perhaps just an eccentric scientist). A technophile is somebody who likes (or loves) technology; in my case, because my future career is based on it.

[Ramo]

Similarly, if I recognize that I have been conditioned not to do murder, then when the opportunity to murder presents itself I will have the impulse not to do murder, but I will recognize that this impulse is conditioned and so will ignore it so that I can objectively assess the situation.

I still fail to see how you can divorce yourself from the impulse simply because you know it's conditioned into you. The Golden Rule (or some variation of it) has been fundamentally conditioned into just about everyone their entire lives - if not from parents, from friends, teachers, or tv. You can't completely block out the impulse; you can ignore it - many people do; but you can't simply eliminate it at will.

However, if I recognize that I have been conditioned to associate food with the sound of a bell ringing, then when I hear a bell ring I may still have the impulse to think about food, but I will recognize that this impulse is conditioned and so will ignore it so that I can objectively assess the situation; is there any sight, sound, or smell of food? No? Am I hungry? No? Then I can dismiss thoughts of food. Eventually I may even cease to have the impulse to think of food when I hear a bell ring.

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

If a justification is not logical, then it is irrational. If, for example, Wiglaf were to say "My soda can is the greatest basketball player of all time because it is made out of aluminum," then he his justification is irrational because there is no logical connection between being a great basketball player and being made out of aluminum.

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

At one time there was a justification for autocracy: it was the only system of government that allowed serfs and Lords to live in a moderately safe society.

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.

A Lord who stole and murdered from his serfs would lose their confidence and could no longer be assured of his own personal safety.

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

When society changed so that autocracy was no longer necessary for safety then the Lords were better able to steal and murder (because they had professional armies backing them up), but they could no longer justify their positions of authority.

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

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by technophile
"Objective" does not mean "absolute;" morality is still anthropocentric

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. That raises several points.

First of all, that doesn't seem likely. Most people in the same society have more or less the same set of moral codes. This is especially true when societies were homogenous to a very large extent. 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.

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.

Thirdly, through what mechanisms did these moral codes spread?

Forthly, how did people select among these codes?

Originally posted by technophile
That's begging the question. Did socialisation create the feelings, or does socialisation reflect the feelings that are already present? The fact that all currently existing human societies have concepts of good and evil suggests to me that the feelings would be there even if society were not.

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

Feelings provoked by certain events are not fixed, they are the results of complicated interactions. For example, many people mourn when their friends and/or relatives pass away, but Buddhism holds it that death is a relief. When people mourn, do they mourn for the dead, for themselves (because of the losses), for the society (because of the losses), or for something else?

BTW, I wasn't begging the question

Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises

Originally posted by technophile
Yes, but a slaveholder's justification for keeping slaves is unjustifiable; "This slave is inferior to me in such a substantive way that I can keep him or her as property and hold their life in my hands" is an extraordinary claim that requires (and lacks) extraordinary justification. Just because something was a "normal thing" does not mean that it was moral; societies are not always correct in what is moral or immoral (for example, Nazi Germany got a bit off track with its moral code).

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

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

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. 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.

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

Originally posted by technophile
The society's definition of "good" and "evil" does evolve, but for any given point in a society's existence that definition may be unjustifiable and thus demonstrably immoral.

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? 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.

Originally posted by technophile
Other changes are associated with the changes in the society's needs. For example, in a Feudal society it is right and justifiable for a Lord to hold an incredible amount of power over his serfs, for this was the only way for the Lord and serfs to live in a state of relative safety from brigands and rival Lords. However, as society and technology eliminated the need for such a rigid heirarchical structure, the moral code changed because it was no longer justifiable for a Lord to hold so much power over his serfs; the serfs could live in relative safety in a city-state with elected officials, or under a parliament, etc., and these alternate forms of government were more justifiable than an autocracy under the new structure of society.

Are you saying that morality is objective or subjective?

Originally posted by technophile
An insufficient one. "I am a hypocrite" is no more of a justification for doing evil than "I am selfish," "I am evil," or "I am composed entirely out of aluminum."

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?

Originally posted by technophile
Are these behaviors justifiable? If everybody unquestioningly accepts these behaviors as justified then I would be begging the question to call the behaviors "irrational." If Bobby-Joe says "I killed my brother because Cthulhu told me to," then for all I know Cthulhu really did speak to Bobby-Joe and tell him to kill his brother; Occam's Razor is not necessarily foolproof.

It depends on whether this sort of behaviour is the norm or the exception.

If a society sees human sacrifices as a necesscity, say to guarantee a bountiful harvest or a military victory over a hated foe, it would be a moral thing to do in that society.

Originally posted by technophile
However, just because a society is full of people who believe that their gods must be appeased by human sacrifice, it does not mean that their definition of "good" and "evil" fails to be objective; we may not be able to understand their justification as being anything other than arbitrary, but if a society has unarbitrarily convinced itself to make human sacrifices to the gods then so be it.

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

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by technophile


Thanks for making an attempt, I guess...

Here, I'll give you a summary version:

"I am right. Blah blah blah. So there." See? Irrefutable logic.

Yes, yes. Thank you for clearing that up.