Atheistic forms of morality

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker

So what? If I am chained and you remove the chains, I am free, true?

Of the chains, yes.

It wasn't the group's morality, it was their own.

It wasn't the WHOLE group's morality, no. But it was the moral opinion of a large enough minority, and that minority was able to get the support of those in power. It was those on power then that then decreed the change.

Why do I get the impression I'm debating John Kerry? Can I just get an answer please

That you do not understand the answer is different from not having one. I said exactly what I meant. Not my fault if you don;t follow.

Goodnight.

[Odin]

I love watching Berz's anti-society, libertarian BS geting pwned.

*popcorn*

[Berzerker]

Except tha what is "bad" is not made form thin air-the idea has to enter the mind. And how does it do that? Through training (education), and who educates? The group does.

Which brings me back to my question (and its variants )
If your morality comes from the group, how do you expain disagreements with the group about what is or is not moral? What is "bad" is informed from several sources, conscience being one. This is the source of morality that leads individuals to disagree with the group when it is wrong.

It is the fact that humans are capable of abstract thought that allows them to take the training and then modify it internally, which allows each individual to have a different conception of the same precepts

The group says slavery is okay. The individual says it is not okay. Thats quite a modification of the group's morality.

This is wrong. Individuals NEVER existed outside of the group. When did YOU get the chance to air your moral believes and then get this agreement?

I didn't say individuals exist outside of the group. And since when must the group adopt my morality for me to have my own morality? You have your own morality too and it didn't come from the group. I dont even know why this is debatable. Yes, the group tries to mold your views, but since the group does not define morality, the group can be wrong and the dissenting individual can be right.
So where did the dissenter get their morality? Conscience is a word we use for this source, some use "God"...

What makes you think that individuals with different power bases would even listen to the weak bellow them? Can you really even imagine this actually working? You might was well try to get a party of 20 people to chose a single pizza topping

How does that help your argument that morality is defined by the group? Are you suggesting %50+ of the vote means whatever decisions made by the majority are moral because the group defines morality?

Why can;t you simplt say KILLED? the word is completely accurate. I can guess why though, you have an attachment to the implied morality of murder, and hence can;t stop using the term.

This is a discussion about morality, no? A drunk driver kills someone, tyrants commit mass murder.

The problem with the definition of murder is the word "unlawful", you think that means illegal. But many thinkers, people most likely responsible for the definition, recognised a difference between what is lawful and what is legal. "Lawful" carries religious overtones, God's laws. A higher law than what is legal. Even the king was ostensibly under God's laws... Therefore it is possible to commit a legal but unlawful murder within the context of the word's original meaning.

By the very addition of "justifiable" you ruin your entire point. Anything can be justified. You can very well argue that without Stalins massive and bloody reforms, his mass use of slave labor, work camps, the collectivization of farming leading to millions of deaths, the Soviets would have never been able to defeat Hitler's Germany, and Nazi Germany and its ideology would have come to dominate western Eurasia. Was Satlin then not justified in his attempts to modernize the USSR at all costs?

How does mentioning "justifiable" homicide defeat my argument? You just cited mass murderers and their unjustified crimes. Are you going to argue Hitler was justified? If not, then why not? Because what he did was unjustifiable on its face. Now, is there such a thing as a justifiable homicide? Of course, killing Hitler is one of many examples. The fact you and I may not agree on what is justifiable doesn't mean justification does not exist.

Oh, and again, group exists before the individual-humans are social apes, after all.

Wow, eons of human individuality with its artistry, music, literature, all wiped out by your perception of long extinct social apes. Unless morality was invented, or recognised by those social apes millions of years ago, I see little relevance to your point.

[Berzerker]

Of the chains, yes.

Which is what I wanted.

It wasn't the WHOLE group's morality, no. But it was the moral opinion of a large enough minority, and that minority was able to get the support of those in power. It was those on power then that then decreed the change.

And the view of this minority was correct? Slavery is immoral, true? Then where did this minority get its morality? They didn't get it from the group. You just shot down your own argument, a minority within the group defined morality correctly in defiance of the group.

That you do not understand the answer is different from not having one. I said exactly what I meant. Not my fault if you don;t follow.

Goodnight.

Gepap, why wont you answer my question? If you say slavery is immoral but the group says otherwise, where did you get your morality?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Wow, eons of human individuality with its artistry, music, literature, all wiped out by your perception of long extinct social apes. Unless morality was invented, or recognised by those social apes millions of years ago, I see little relevance to your point.

Long extinct social apes? We ARE social apes you airhead. "Enlightened Self-intrest" sycophants like you forget that that concept was a creation of the Enlightenment. Classical Greeks had a much diferent concept of the individual, the person-in-society, individual and society are inseperable. You talk as if society and the individual are opposed to each other, that is a false dicotomy, they are an organic whole. You seem to think your concept of the individual and society is "obvious", Most other cultures in human history would consider you a dangerous, anti-social fool, and those people were just as creative as modern people.

[Berzerker]

Long extinct social apes? We ARE social apes you airhead.

You may be a social ape, but I count several million years of evolution away from social apes. Yes Odin, the social apes we branched off from are long extinct. I dont know why that statement bothers you, but its true nonetheless. Hell, groups dont evolve, individuals within the group evolve and eventually supplant the group.

"Enlightened Self-intrest" sycophants like you forget that that concept was a creation of the Enlightenment. Classical Greeks had a much diferent concept of the individual, the person-in-society, individual and society are inseperable.

Do you even understand what Gepap and I are debating?

You talk as if society and the individual are opposed to each other, that is a false dicotomy, they are an organic whole.

Ignore my last question, I have my answer. How do you explain the fact individuals can oppose the group's definition of morality and be right?

You seem to think your concept of the individual and society is "obvious", Most other cultures in human history would consider you a dangerous, anti-social fool, and those people were just as creative as modern people.

I know that my conscience guides my views of morality, not the group. Aside from the fact you dont speak for them, creative people are often persecuted by the group. So using them to argue the group defines morality is laughable. A work of art is the work of an individual, not the group. Go back to one liners, you're out of your league.