Believers, Non-Believers & Morality

Originally posted by @fmf
"Moral perfection" does not exist.

Does not exist in reality or in theory? Surely, for an atheist, moral perfection exists in theory, no?

Originally posted by @fmf
I don't assume they exist.

You have already received a straightforward answer to your straightforward question. Engage it. Don't pretend.

If I had asked you 'do you assume God's laws exist?', your answer would be an acceptable one. You and I both know that that is not what I asked you and we both know why you refuse to answer it.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Does not exist in reality or in theory? Surely, for an atheist, moral perfection exists in theory, no?

Morality is a real thing. It's a real, practical, everyday thing. It's housed in our brains. It is like a guide that helps up navigate the complexities of our real lives. Morality assists us to deal with real stuff as best we can. Every human being has their own unique version of it and their unique history of how they got it and how they apply it. That unique moral code and track record is about as close as we can get, in real terms, to defining our each and every personhood and individuality. I am happy to talk about morality in reality in these sorts of terms. I am not interested in how many angels there are dancing on the head of a pin or how moral they might hypothetically be.

Originally posted by @fmf
Morality is a real thing. It's a real, practical, everyday thing. It's housed in our brains. It is like a guide that helps up navigate the complexities of our real lives. Morality assists us to deal with real stuff as best we can. Every human being has their own unique version of it and their unique history of how they got it and how they apply it. That unique ...[text shortened]... ow many angels there are dancing on the head of a pin or how moral they might hypothetically be.

Don’t you agree morally-acceptable behavior is not defined by an individual?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If I had asked you 'do you assume God's laws exist?', your answer would be an acceptable one. You and I both know that that is not what I asked you and we both know why you refuse to answer it.

What you call "God's standards" are your own subjective moral standards that you choose to refer to as "God's standards".

Your use of this kind of debating gimmick came up before back in the days when you were asking numerous people over and over and over and over again about how could atheists possibly say that torturing a baby for fun was immoral when they had no "dive law", and even when people fielded your ridiculous question, you would just ask it again over and over and over again. Do you remember?

Well, you tried one of your 'Assuming what I am saying is right, then... that means I'd be right, right?' gimmicks. And I illustrated the problem. I said -assuming it was not morally unsound to torture babies for fun [I used your favourite analogy at that time] because your god figure told you it was OK, and wanted you to do it, even though you had thought it was objectively wrong to do, would you then torture babies for fun. And you refused to assume any such thing.

There are no "God's standards"> I do not have any reason to assume they are anything other than what they actually are: your own subjective moral standards that you choose to refer to in a superstitious and self-aggrandizing way.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Don’t you agree morally-acceptable behavior is not defined by an individual?

<<Every human being has their own unique version of it and their unique history of how they got it and how they apply it.>>

So two people walk down the street and come across a person collapsed and in pain. One checks on him and calls for an ambulance. The other says, “Why are you getting involved? My morality is not to get involved in other people’s problems. It only creates trouble.”

Did each person behave in a morally-acceptable way?

Originally posted by @romans1009
Don’t you agree morally-acceptable behavior is not defined by an individual?

Short answer: it's the product of the individual's unique human nature [I call it spirit] and is also shaped by nurture... family, neighbourhood, friends, culture, religion, experience and changes in those things.

Originally posted by @romans1009
<<Every human being has their own unique version of it and their unique history of how they got it and how they apply it.>>

So two people walk down the street and come across a person collapsed and in pain. One checks on him and calls for an ambulance. The other says, “Why are you getting involved? My morality is not to get involved in other people’s problems. It only creates trouble.”

Did each person behave in a morally-acceptable way?

That's for you to decide. You are a free moral agent, aren't you?

I am responsible for myself and my own decisions and I obviously have the right to evaluate the behaviour of others.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Don’t you agree morally-acceptable behavior is not defined by an individual?

Laws, to a certain degree, are based on what is seen in varying contexts as morally-acceptable behaviour. Social mores and obligations also help to define what is perceived as morally-acceptable behaviour. But, ultimately, the nitty gritty 'defining' goes on in the individual's conscience - in response to his environment and experience - and governs his or her interactions with others.

Originally posted by @fmf
Short answer: it's the product of the individual's unique human nature [I call it spirit] and is also shaped by nurture... family, neighbourhood, friends, culture, religion, experience and changes in those things.

You don’t think there is any common behavior across generations and cultures that all of humanity would consider moral or amoral? And if 95 percent of humanity views an action or behavior as moral and 5 percent do not, is the opinion of the 5 percent equally valid as the opinion of the 95 percent?

Originally posted by @fmf
That's for you to decide. You are a free moral agent, aren't you?

I am responsible for myself and my own decisions and I obviously have the right to evaluate the behaviour of others.

Ok, well what is your evaluation of the two people in my example? Did one behave morally and one did not in your evaluation?

Originally posted by @romans1009
You don’t think there is any common behavior across generations and cultures that all of humanity would consider moral or amoral?

Yes and I think it's evidence that these commonalities are the upshot of how humans are wired and what works - helps us to survive and prosper - in collective living; in other words, human nature, the human condition.

Originally posted by @fmf
Laws, to a certain degree, are based on what is seen in varying contexts as morally-acceptable behaviour. Social mores and obligations also help to define what is perceived as morally-acceptable behaviour. But, ultimately, the nitty gritty 'defining' goes on in the individual's conscience - in response to his environment and experience - and governs his or her interactions with others.

<<But, ultimately, the nitty gritty 'defining' goes on in the individual's conscience - in response to his environment and experience - and governs his or her interactions with others.>>

So someone’s morality or moral code always governs his or her interactions with others? Aren’t there cases where someone knows what the moral thing to do is (according to their own moral code,) but choose not to do it?

Originally posted by @romans1009
Ok, well what is your evaluation of the two people in my example? Did one behave morally and one did not in your evaluation?

I'd feel morally obliged to help. I'd be unimpressed by the other person's behaviour.

Originally posted by @romans1009
So someone’s morality or moral code always governs his or her interactions with others?

This is all that morality is. There is nothing more or less to it, to my way of thinking.