29 Jul 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf everything ultimately must be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, what is a moral value (does it have mass, occupy space, hold a charge, have wavelength)?
Read these recently on another website, thought they were pretty interesting food for thought... for those inclined.
• If everything ultimately must be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, what is a moral value (does it have mass, occupy space, hold a charge, have wavelength)?
• How did matter, energy, time and chance result in a set of ob ...[text shortened]... ry? Why can't it simply be ignored? Won’t our end be the same (death and the grave) either way?
It is a part of cognition. I see moral values as preferences regarding behaviour of self and others. I hope you're smart enough to realize that preferences can be quite extreme in what the subject is willing to do to enforce them on himself and others.
How did matter, energy, time and chance result in a set of objective moral values? Did the Big Bang really spew forth “love your enemy?”
It didn't.
a) What makes your moral standard more than a subjective opinion or personal preference? b) What makes it truly binding or obligatory? c) Why can't it simply be ignored? d) Won’t our end be the same (death and the grave) either way?
a) It's a preference, yes. b and c) I'm not willing to compromise on certain of those preferences, so ignoring it will have consequences. Since others share my preferences to a large extent, the consequences can have a meaningful impact. This goes for moral absolutists, as well. If you're alone in your absolutism, you can also be ignored. I guess the end will be the same, but the point of life is not the destination in my view.
Basically, what you're saying is that atheists should be noncognitivists. I also find this the most tenable position.
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by shahenshahThe difficulty with this is that, if you accept that morality is defined by the unchanging totality of the teachings of the religion you adhere to, then if follows as night follows day that atheists can never create new moral values.
Can you list out 10 ethics / moral values that (are not originally from the Bible or any other religion) have emerged from Atheist thinkers?
Take homosexuality. I am not gay, but I cannot see how what two consenting and loving individuals do in the privacy of their own homes is immoral. Yet some religions assert that it is.
I reach this view on the basis that I do not like and want to be persecuted for something that harms nobody. So I aspire to a society that allows me to do this, in which case I must respect others' right to live the life according to a path I don't happen to choose. I include religion in that as well.
But I was born in a country that, in my lifetime, treated it as a criminal act, so presumably it was considered immoral. No doubt, in part, this view was supported by prevailing religious views at the time.
I don't think the legalisation of homosexuality was necessarily a religious act or an act of atheism, but I do think it was a moral one, for the reasons above.
However, even if we assume for the sake of argument that it was the work of atheists, then the religious adherent whose faith prohibits it would simply say it was not a moral act, as it contradicts the teachings of their faith. So atheists can never win.
You could say much the same of our changing attitudes to slavery, abortion, female emancipation and so. Some of these changes would been supported by atheists, some by religious people. No doubt they were opposed at the time by people in both groups as well.
And as many religions have opposing views on these subjects, I don't think we can say that morality, as such, is a unique property of religion. As it begs the question, which religion and who's to say which is most moral? They can't all be, when they have such fundamentally opposing views on so many moral issues.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by PalynkaQuote exchange:
[b]If everything ultimately must be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, what is a moral value (does it have mass, occupy space, hold a charge, have wavelength)?
It is a part of cognition. I see moral values as preferences regarding behaviour of self and others. I hope you're smart enough to realize that preferences can be quite extreme in ...[text shortened]... g is that atheists should be noncognitivists. I also find this the most tenable position.[/b]
"If everything ultimately must be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, what is a moral value (does it have mass, occupy space, hold a charge, have wavelength)?"
"It is a part of cognition. I see moral values as preferences regarding behaviour of self and others. I hope you're smart enough to realize that preferences can be quite extreme in what the subject is willing to do to enforce them on himself and others."
Enforcement is part of it. Entire cultural systems are built around the reinforcement of moral codes. It can be argued that a major role of religion is to invest a moral code with the aura of divine truth, which of course cannot tolerate a noncognitive approach or alternative competing religions. This intolerance can corrupt the very moral code it is intended to support.
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by JS357I tend to see religion as very multi-faceted. So in a sense, I agree with you that religion can be a way to generate self-enforcement of certain behaviours. I just don't want to seem to be accepting that this is why religion was created. You don't say that explicitly, so I don't know if that is part of what you were getting at.
Enforcement is part of it. Entire cultural systems are built around the reinforcement of moral codes. It can be argued that a major role of religion is to invest a moral code with the aura of divine truth, which of course cannot tolerate a noncognitive approach or alternative competing religions. This intolerance can corrupt the very moral code it is intended to support.
But in such a functionalist view, what would diminish most the role of religion: science or a strong judicial system?
29 Jul 11
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNice to see that today, at least, you have decided to take your medications. It's almost as if two different personalities have access to your account.
I bring up the Klingons because they're a widely recognized alien culture...
No, you bring up Klingons because you recognize that only in fantasy does your thinking find justification. The funny thing, the ironic thing, is that you didn't need to go to deep space in order to find war-mongering societies.
And my point is that an alien culture to a core of moral imperatives? Absolutely, positively, without question: not.
Someday, maybe, I shall address all your points. Or perhaps others will do so to my satisfaction and I'll leave it at that. There are several different discussions being carried on in this thread simultaneously, which is part of the reason (but only part) there is a low signal to noise ratio.
It is not my position that there can be societies that do not have a code of moral values (or "core of moral imperatives" as you put it). Merely that there is no absolute code, whether in theory or in practice. Your position is hopelessly Platonic, for it seems to set much store by some kind of perfect, eternal ideal that can only be approximately conceived by man but never wholly acquired; but unlike Plato you furnish a god as well, because you do not see ideals, or any ideas whatsoever, as being capable of existing without being given a "life spark" by this god. It sounds tidy, but seems a stretch.
The following questions you might think about answering in reverse order.
What exactly is this "core of moral imperatives" that you speak of, and can you list some of the particulars?
Is it indeed your position that a god is necessary for a universal and absolute code of moral imperatives to exist?
Do you think the integers can exist without a god? (This third question is not facetious, because I think the way you answer it may help clarify where you stand on things. After all, the integers do not have "mass" or "energy" or any other physical attribute, and yet they exist and would almost certainly be universally recognized by all sufficiently developed intelligent beings in the universe.)
What is your definition of existence? What is your definition of a moral value?
My own stance on the matter is, of course, entirely relativistic. Moral values vary from one society to another to at least a small degree. Nonhuman intelligences, which I believe are out there, likely vary quite a bit more.
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by PalynkaIt is a part of cognition.
If everything ultimately must be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, what is a moral value (does it have mass, occupy space, hold a charge, have wavelength)?
It is a part of cognition. I see moral values as preferences regarding behaviour of self and others. I hope you're smart enough to realize that preferences can be quite extreme in wha ...[text shortened]... g is that atheists should be noncognitivists. I also find this the most tenable position.[/b]
You stopped a little short of saying it, so correct me if I'm wrong by finishing the thought for you: moral values are nothing more than chemically-induced electrical charges within the synapses of the brain.
Basically, what you're saying is that atheists should be noncognitivists. I also find this the most tenable position.
That's certainly a possibility, but not one that has been put forward as of yet.
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastNice to see that today, at least, you have decided to take your medications. It's almost as if two different personalities have access to your account.
Nice to see that today, at least, you have decided to take your medications. It's almost as if two different personalities have access to your account.
Someday, maybe, I shall address all your points. Or perhaps others will do so to my satisfaction and I'll leave it at that. There are several different discussions being carried on in this thread simu ...[text shortened]... Nonhuman intelligences, which I believe are out there, likely vary quite a bit more.
We take umbrage at such a charge. And, we take our medications every day. Some days, we take more than others--- only when you don't let me read the dosage! Shut up. No, you shut up.
And we're back...
but unlike Plato you furnish a god as well, because you do not see ideals, or any ideas whatsoever, as being capable of existing without being given a "life spark" by this god.
I haven't furnished a god. This is a conversation directed toward atheists without offering a counter suggestion. I'm certain we'll get to that at some point, but for now, we're just concentrating on the position from an atheist's viewpoint.
We'll get to saving your soul later.
Do you think the integers can exist without a god?
Given that I/we believe that existence came to be as a result of the direct command of God, and given that all existence is a shadow reflection of His existence, there can be no symbolic representation of a thing without said thing existing, our answer is... no. [Is that wrong?]
However, that being said, you correctly describe integers as a product of the mind, and they could just as easily been in the OP... similar to eliminating "moral value" with "thought," as suggested earlier. Moral imperatives, unlike either integers or thought, have value.
Is it indeed your position that a god is necessary for a universal and absolute code of moral imperatives to exist?
I think my feelings would be best expressed by a monologue from a 2008 comedy starring James Carrey, "Yes Man."
Yes, yes, yes!
What exactly is this "core of moral imperatives" that you speak of, and can you list some of the particulars?
Those binding and contractual agreements on acceptable behavior which allow people to live in groups with one another.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by PalynkaI agree that religion is multifaceted and exists for a number of reasons and serves a number of functions.
I tend to see religion as very multi-faceted. So in a sense, I agree with you that religion can be a way to generate self-enforcement of certain behaviours. I just don't want to seem to be accepting that this is why religion was created. You don't say that explicitly, so I don't know if that is part of what you were getting at.
But in such a functionalist view, what would diminish most the role of religion: science or a strong judicial system?
I suppose from a functionalist POV the countries where the role of religion is diminished, would be those where the functions of religion are better served by other social or governmental institutions and systems. "Better served" would include effectiveness, efficiency, and with less deleterious side effects. The lists of least religious countries I have seen typically include Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, or agnostic), Vietnam, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Czech Republic, Finland, France, South Korea, and Estonia. Just off the top of my head, some institutions that might be studied would include family including family support systems, school, other social services, and community involvement. (I'd look more at crime prevention systems, more than judicial systems.) Other than a functional analysis I would look at the degree of ethnic concentration (It kind of jumps out that some of those countries are or until recently were virtually monocultural), wealth distribution, physical health, and the status of women including access to education and personal wealth. I'm not sure about science per se, other than as an indicator of education.
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYes, sure.
You stopped a little short of saying it, so correct me if I'm wrong by finishing the thought for you: moral values are nothing more than chemically-induced electrical charges within the synapses of the brain.
That's certainly a possibility, but not one that has been put forward as of yet.
I was just skimming the thread and noticed that you said that the position that there are no objective moral values was "a touch cuckoo". That seemed like you would exclude noncognitivism as a possibility. Am I reading you wrong?
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by Rank outsiderBloody well said, seconded.
The difficulty with this is that, if you accept that morality is defined by the unchanging totality of the teachings of the religion you adhere to, then if follows as night follows day that atheists can never create new moral values.
Take homosexuality. I am not gay, but I cannot see how what two consenting and loving individuals do in the privacy ...[text shortened]... ey can't all be, when they have such fundamentally opposing views on so many moral issues.
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by Rank outsiderAgreed with your logic.
The difficulty with this is that, if you accept that morality is defined by the unchanging totality of the teachings of the religion you adhere to, then if follows as night follows day that atheists can never create new moral values.
Take homosexuality. I am not gay, but I cannot see how what two consenting and loving individuals do in the privacy ...[text shortened]... ey can't all be, when they have such fundamentally opposing views on so many moral issues.
However see your line excerpted below...
"I don't think we can say that morality, as such, is a unique property of religion."
Just for your info, please see an interesting defintion of morals/ethics given by Mr Avalanchethecat.
So if morality is not a unique property of religion, then can you show just 1 moral /ethical standard that came / originated out of contemporary atheist philosophers?
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatLet me see if I understand what you are saying....
Religions don't 'create' morals, they merely provide a simple framework for their existence.
that is morals /ethics just existed long before religions came into being. And now religions have formed themselves around these basic values?