How do you determine right from wrong?

Observer
Observer's picture
Posts: 63
Joined: 2008-09-17
User is offlineOffline
How do you determine right from wrong?

How do we determine right and wrong? How do we mold our lives to follow ethical standards and moral choices? What is morality?

If anybody would like to, I would love to hear how you think human beings do this. If this has been posted on here before, I am sorry. I tried to look and didn’t find one. There others LIKE this topic, but not one where people simply left how they form their morality.

Below are the basic questions I would like responders to address. This is not a debate, I just want to know how you as an individual address the issue of following and forming ethics.

What are some ethical choices we make today that should remain constant forever?

For instance, not stealing would be an eternal moral. What are some ethical choices past civilizations followed but we should not longer follow? For instance, ending slavery, caste systems, and racism in general in addition to allowing gay marriage may be areas that people identify as a changing aspect of morals. Also, please include WHY we should follow these morals. What is the reason you would give to an individual for why they should follow these moral choices?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Um... yeah.  It's been

Um... yeah.  It's been covered a bit.  Here are a few resources for you:

What Does Sugar Have To Do With Murder?!

Christian Morality (with pictures!)

Conspicuous Consumption: Why "Good Enough" is never good enough.

Free Will: Why we don't have it, and why that's a good thing.

Escaping the Threat of Hell

Innate vs. Cultural Morality

On Myth, Sexuality, and Culture

These all have something to do with natural human morality.  If you want to get a full picture of what morality is, how it evolved, and how it functions, I recommend the following three books.  (You really do need to read all three of them.)

Product Details

The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation

 

Product Details

The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology

 

Product Details

The Evolution Of Desire - Revised Edition 4 by David M. Buss

 

If you get through those three books and all those essays and still don't understand morality, please, feel free to ask questions.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
What about when Jean Valjean

Observer wrote:
For instance, not stealing would be an eternal moral.

 

What about when Jean Valjean stole a baguette to feed his sister and her starving children?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Observer wrote:How do we

Observer wrote:

How do we determine right and wrong?

 

Right is what produces pleasant sensation in one's brain, wrong is what produces unpleasant sensations.

Observer wrote:

How do we mold our lives to follow ethical standards and moral choices?

 

No one ever does, we all just follow a strategy to maximize our pleasure and minimize our discomfort. We're all selfish bastards in our core being.

Observer wrote:

What is morality?

When a religious or moral authority tells others to do as I say, not as a I do. A scam to get people to behave in ways beneficial only to the 'moral authorities'.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Observer wrote:For instance,

Observer wrote:

For instance, not stealing would be an eternal moral. 

Eh, I've never equated theft to necessarily being immoral. It's obviously wrong, but I think it's also circumstantial. Stealing someone's television to pawn off because you're too lazy to work would be an example of an immoral act. Stealing food from a Totalitarian oppressor because they don't provide the means to survive isn't immoral. Honestly, I've taken Ethics before and what we discussed most often is how there's really no such thing as morality but instead perspective. What seems appauling in our culture could be common place somewhere else, and vice versa.

I think the general consensus of the culture you live in determines what is right and wrong. They back their beliefs up with laws, caste systems, military, and the other basic building blocks of a society. I think the best chance for raising a moral person is good parenting.


Observer
Observer's picture
Posts: 63
Joined: 2008-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hammbydammit: Thanks for

Hammbydammit:

 

Thanks for the book list!  Just to clarify, I am not really interested in WHY we are moral as if there was one answer om in this thread (Althought that is interesting as well and I will for sure check out the books). Rather, I am interested in why regular individuals on this message board choose to be moral and what they define as "moral". I just want to know the motivation. A theist may give food to the poor because they believe their god or gods want them to do so. An antheist may do so simply because they grasp a natural desire to do what they see as  a right. Same action, two very different motivations. I just want to know, what is your motivation for being moral? That is why I think this thread is a little differnt from similar ones. It is just an inquiry not a debate.

 

TO the others:

Thanks for your comments.  I agree with your comments on stealing, it is circumstantial. I should have been more explicit. I meant the times when it is not for survival but for wants and greed at the expense of somebody else.  Now, somebody may even come up with a scenerio where that is okay, so sorry. How about just the times when it is wrong? hahaha 

 

Please keep the comments coming. I am just interested in how YOU form morals. I am not really wanting a debate. A theist may say so God doens't punish them and an atheist because of sociatal norms or because it just feels right or whatever.  I don't want to disagree. I just want to know what makes you tick. I am just curious at what regular people on this site do to form their morals. I am interested in books like Hammbydamit gave, but I also just want to see what every day people do to form their morals and how they would convince others to follow those same morals.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Observer wrote:Rather, I am

Observer wrote:

Rather, I am interested in why regular individuals on this message board choose to be moral and what they define as "moral".

I choose to be moral because I want to be moral. That's really all there is to it. I don't like stealing. I enjoy helping people. Etc.

As for what I define as "moral," I now consider myself a moral pluralist. I don't think there are any perfect ethical systems; instead, we have to mix them up to determine the best course of action in any specific situation. Also, there is no inherent morality or any morality independent of humanity or any Platonic forms representing good or evil. However, there are many moral sentiments that are pretty much universal in our species. Some good starting points for a preferable morality would be:

- The Golden Rule.

- People might not necessarily want you to do to them what you want them to do to you. Hence, if you are unsure, ask first.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Rather, I am

 

Quote:
Rather, I am interested in why regular individuals on this message board choose to be moral and what they define as "moral".

Well, my main judge when I am facing a moral dilemma is usually fairness.  That is, if my action will unfairly harm another person, it's probably not a good idea.  That's really broad, of course, but it's the general principle.  Most moral dilemmas I encounter can be solved pretty simply that way.  I shouldn't steal because other people work hard for their money, and it's not fair to them that I should deprive them of the things they want to buy with their money.  I shouldn't ask my friend to buy all the beer when we go out.  I should at least pay for half the drinks, or pay for the cab, or something to make it relatively even. 

Why do I choose to be moral?  Most of the time, it's a combination of two things:

1) I would like other people to be good to me, and if I am bad to them, it is unlikely they will be good to me.

2) I have a good deal of human empathy, and I feel bad when I hurt other people.  I don't like feeling bad.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
There are choices which does

There are choices which does lead to development and choices which doesn't. Development is good. Non-development is bad.
The point is, that the good is relative in terms of the development, (evolution) which is not much, but yes. Nothing can be good forever. Things which means a development for us today are good.
Reputedly, there were times millions of years ago, when killing and torture caused a biological and cultural development of some kind, but this is obviously not relevant today.

Of course, a skilled disciple must also distinguish not only between, good, evil, lesser evil and greater evil, but also between lesser good and greater good.
Methods for making the best choice are, (obviously) experience, study, intellect, intuition, and most importantly, pure motivation. To develop these skills the disciple should do what he or she is named after - be disciplined. The discipline should involve meditation, service, and possibly also further self-education, as there is never end to it. The self-improvement courses and workshops are very popular. Just like the one I've been on today. I actually belong to a group of friends who chose to improve themselves in that manner systematically for years. I only joined in very recently, a year ago, or so.

EXC wrote:
Right is what produces pleasant sensation in one's brain, wrong is what produces unpleasant sensations.
Too short-sighted. This is only true on biological level. However, on the socially cultural level on which most of the humans is, we can also endure the pain and even sacrifice our lives for abstract ideals and thoughts.

EXC wrote:
No one ever does, we all just follow a strategy to maximize our pleasure and minimize our discomfort. We're all selfish bastards in our core being.
Again, that's only a biological level. There are people who do not go after the pleasure and do not avoid the discomfort at all costs.

The reason why do I disagree with you is, that the biological level is the least valuable, the most primitive choice. There are even higher levels of consciousness, allowing a much greater diversity and more certain survival than lower levels. The technically developed society needs an extremely advanced moral code, if it should survive. Today it is mostly insufficient for survival, though it is much better than millenia ago.
Example: We must work for the employer's profit. We want to work for our own profit. But we should work for the good of the world, not for profit. That's the best way to ensure the collective survival, still more of altruism.


butterbattle wrote:

I choose to be moral because I want to be moral. That's really all there is to it. I don't like stealing. I enjoy helping people. Etc.

Congratulations! I had read that there are four stages of moral development.
1. stage - the deity is powerful, cruel and selfish, it demands service and punishes immediately for disobedience.
2. stage - the deity is capricious and powerful, and must be satisfied through sacrifices to bring a good crop and death upon the enemies of tribe. The punishment and reward is rather quick.
3. stage - the deity is powerful, but somewhat distant. It offers to reward the follower in some time in the future, or after death, for a correct life and obedience.
4. stage - the deity doesn't matter, people do what they know is right, just because it is right and not for a reward. This is the purpose of all this, not a service to the deity.
 

butterbattle wrote:
As for what I define as "moral," I now consider myself a moral pluralist. I don't think there are any perfect ethical systems; instead, we have to mix them up to determine the best course of action in any specific situation. Also, there is no inherent morality or any morality independent of humanity or any Platonic forms representing good or evil. However, there are many moral sentiments that are pretty much universal in our species. Some good starting points for a preferable morality would be:

- The Golden Rule.

- People might not necessarily want you to do to them what you want them to do to you. Hence, if you are unsure, ask first.

Again, congratulations. We need more politicians like that.

 


 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Too

Luminon wrote:

Too short-sighted. This is only true on biological level.

We're still bound by our biology. Sure we invent layers of abstraction from this but we are still bound by this goal at every level.

Luminon wrote:

However, on the socially cultural level on which most of the humans is, we can also endure the pain and even sacrifice our lives for abstract ideals and thoughts.

We can only endure pain and sacrifice for an expectation of pleasure. For instance, soldiers will sacrifice for God and country. But this is only for heaven or because we are social animals that derive pleasure when working towards the common goal. When someone makes a 'sacrifice' for the common good, there is still a sensation of pleasure in doing the 'right' thing.
 

Can you give an example when someone 'sacrifices' for something without an associated pleasure or expectation of pleasure?


 

Luminon wrote:

The reason why do I disagree with you is, that the biological level is the least valuable, the most primitive choice. There are even higher levels of consciousness, allowing a much greater diversity and more certain survival than lower levels.

If the primitive parts of the brain are shut down, pleasure and pain are removed, then we loose all motivation to do anything. Our higher order reasoning tells us to do nothing. All motivation is gone without an expectation of pleasure sensations.

Luminon wrote:

The technically developed society needs an extremely advanced moral code, if it should survive.

A technically developed society can measure what people really want and what motivates people. Technology and reason tell us free will is an illusion, therefore morality is an illusion. Everyone just wants to feel good and avoid pain as much as possible. You have to design a society around this truth. We are bound by our biology.

Luminon wrote:

Today it is mostly insufficient for survival, though it is much better than millenia ago.
Example: We must work for the employer's profit. We want to work for our own profit. But we should work for the good of the world, not for profit. That's the best way to ensure the collective survival, still more of altruism.
 

The altruism must create pleasurable sensations in every individual or it won't work. Then it's not really altruism, it hedonism via cooperation with others.

Since we are all 'selfish', people will rationalize any behavior and say their own behavior is moral. If you tell people to work for some imaginary benefits, many will just see though this as a scam and do their own thing. You have to start with the fact that all humans are selfish and only interested in feeling good. Then design a society around how things really work.

You can't just invent a new motivation for people. We are bound by our biology.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:We're still bound

EXC wrote:
We're still bound by our biology. Sure we invent layers of abstraction from this but we are still bound by this goal at every level.
These are not just a layers of abstractions, these are means to free us from the pursuit of pleasure and escaping of pain. There are much more important things to do in life than just that.


EXC wrote:
We can only endure pain and sacrifice for an expectation of pleasure. For instance, soldiers will sacrifice for God and country. But this is only for heaven or because we are social animals that derive pleasure when working towards the common goal. When someone makes a 'sacrifice' for the common good, there is still a sensation of pleasure in doing the 'right' thing.
The idea of sacrifice for pleasure is pretty contradictory. It is mainly possible in today's extreme Muslim suicidal terrorists, but otherwise it is not a good example. As you know, we have invented a new abstractions. The duty, the ideals, the country, a things worthy of working, fighting and dying for, and even without a pleasure. It simply must be done. The people earlier would think that it is stupid, getting our ass killed because of some country, or some guy with crown far away from here. I don't say that this worshipping of some ideal (not necessarily religional) is always right, but it opened to us a new ways of development. For example, people today can accept the idea of global peace, charity and caring for the environment. Earlier in the history, these would be seen as signs of weakness.
 

EXC wrote:
Can you give an example when someone 'sacrifices' for something without an associated pleasure or expectation of pleasure?
The duty, the justice (sacrificing one to save the many), or simply to ensure the future for descendants. And the earlier examples. The empathy and love is also a good example. The love is not only about a good feeling. It is about feeling terribly, if other people elsewhere also feel terribly.
 

EXC wrote:
If the primitive parts of the brain are shut down, pleasure and pain are removed, then we loose all motivation to do anything. Our higher order reasoning tells us to do nothing. All motivation is gone without an expectation of pleasure sensations.
I dare to oppose. In that case, we lose only the worst of our motivations! Terrible things were done in our history, just because people wanted to avoid pain and death and to achieve the pleasure. There are much greater and higher motivations, based on cultural, personal and transpersonal principles, rather than the biological. For example, the idea of living in peace, sharing, justice for all, and so on. The biological level is here to ensure the basic survival. Once the survival is estabilished, we must abandon it and live socially, etc.
Note, that the higher levels of living and consciousness prefer emotional neutrality. No great pain, but also no great pleasure. Rather than pleasure, there should be a spontaneous joy coming from within oneself and from the most ordinary things, like the sun, sky, trees, flowers, home, family, travelling, and so on. The detachment and emotional neutrality is also an anticipated goal in practices like Buddhism, one can not be enlightened if he's attached to impermanent things, like money, power, wealth, and so on.

Of course all these ideals generally mean less of pain and more pleasure, eventually. But it is always long-termed and very abstract, thus incomprehensible from biological level.


EXC wrote:
A technically developed society can measure what people really want and what motivates people. Technology and reason tell us free will is an illusion, therefore morality is an illusion. Everyone just wants to feel good and avoid pain as much as possible. You have to design a society around this truth. We are bound by our biology.

Sure. So explain me why two-thirds of the global population suffer in poverty and the rich rest of the world has an exaggerated, senseless needs? Why do we have commercials and supermarkets full of useless trinkets and junk food, while there are millions starving elsewhere?
These are clearly a signs of that we don't measure what people really want and need. (even though we can, you're right about that) As for the morality, we are made by evolution in a certain way. We are not amorphous, we have specific needs, and fulfilling these needs for the greatest possible number of people is the morality. Therefore, for our current time and currently important issues, the morality is not relative.
 

EXC wrote:
The altruism must create pleasurable sensations in every individual or it won't work. Then it's not really altruism, it hedonism via cooperation with others.
Thinking about helping the world gives a good feelings, but it doesn't get anything done. The altruism in process is a work, often diffcult and dirty. It is not primarily an entertainment. It may give a good feelings eventually, but the primary drive is the abstract "doing what is right, even if it's not easy".
 

EXC wrote:
Since we are all 'selfish', people will rationalize any behavior and say their own behavior is moral. If you tell people to work for some imaginary benefits, many will just see though this as a scam and do their own thing. You have to start with the fact that all humans are selfish and only interested in feeling good. Then design a society around how things really work.

You can't just invent a new motivation for people. We are bound by our biology.


We were bound by our biology. But as our consciousness expands through ages, we are also bound by the biology of our broader ambience. Once the people took care only of themselves. Then, they saw the family as important as them. Later, they could do the same for their tribe. Today, the nation is less or more like the family. And we will evolve into such a consciousness, that the needs of the planet will be seen as our needs. We will be "selfish" in wanting the greatest good for our global family.
There is a thing called Gauss curve. It shows the averageness. It shows, that most of the people today are on a socially-cultural level, less of them lives biologically and also less of them is more advanced, thinking in the above mentioned terms of broad altruism. The new ways of thinking and living already exist, it is only a problem of introducing them to the broader public. I have to say, the majority of people becomes more receptive to these new concepts in times of worldwide crises and calamities. Btw, the 'imaginary', abstract goals in life are much less demanding on the natural environment, on which we all depend with our lives.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: The idea of

Luminon wrote:

 

The idea of sacrifice for pleasure is pretty contradictory.

We sacrifice short term pain for long term pleasure. We also sacrifice to be loved and respected by others. But we still are only motivated to maximize pleasure. So we're essentially all hedonists.

 

Luminon wrote:

The duty, the justice (sacrificing one to save the many), or simply to ensure the future for descendants. And the earlier examples. The empathy and love is also a good example. The love is not only about a good feeling. It is about feeling terribly, if other people elsewhere also feel terribly.

And this feeling of sacrifice for others produces a sensation of pleasure. That's why parents sacrifice for their children, to get the 'high' from taking care of them. Not much different than a drug addict working hard to be able to by drugs. About the only difference is social acceptance.

Luminon wrote:

I dare to oppose. In that case, we lose only the worst of our motivations!

 

If pain and pleasure are shut down, we loose all motivation. So the motivation to work, socialize, make art, make music, etc.. all go away. If your ability to experience pleasure and pain were impaired, so to would your so called altruistic motivations be gone.

Luminon wrote:

Terrible things were done in our history, just because people wanted to avoid pain and death and to achieve the pleasure.

 

So were all the good things. Including reproduction.

Luminon wrote:

There are much greater and higher motivations, based on cultural, personal and transpersonal principles, rather than the biological. For example, the idea of living in peace, sharing, justice for all, and so on.

But they must produce a sensation of pleasure otherwise we will not be motivated to do them.

Luminon wrote:

Sure. So explain me why two-thirds of the global population suffer in poverty and the rich rest of the world has an exaggerated, senseless needs? Why do we have commercials and supermarkets full of useless trinkets and junk food, while there are millions starving elsewhere?

Because we are all selfish and greedy, but we've never designed societies around this truth. It's always religion, patriotism, reproduction and consumerism as the highest pursuit. Not the pursuit of sustainable happiness and pleasure via scientific methods. Humans are too narcissistic and arrogant to admit we're all hedonists.

I think a big part of the problem is we see ourselves as 'unselfish' and morally good. It's only those other people that are greedy, selfish, immoral and unable to control themselves. If we drop this notion of anyone being motivated by anything other than pleasure/pain sensations, we can get rid of all the phony morality and phony altruism and focus on the common pursuit of pleasure. We would stop seeing others as enemies and instead see others as sharing a common goal for cooperation.


 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Bulldog
Superfan
Bulldog's picture
Posts: 333
Joined: 2007-08-04
User is offlineOffline
I keep it simple.  If the

I keep it simple.  If the morality of an action (something done or said) is in question I consider how I would feel or react if the action were to be taken toward me.   If it would cause me hurt, embarrassment, financial loss, etc. I would not take that action against someone else. 

An atheist generally is moral because that is what makes our society and this world a better place for all to live.  We choose to be moral because it is the right thing to do, not because we have to or we won't get into party central in heaven.

Of course, life is not always that simple and morality can skewed depending on societal norms.  In earlier times, if a given society had no concept of "ownership" taking  something from another would not necessarily be an issue of morality.  christians of olde did not consider killing people of another faith to be morally wrong if they would not convert to their version of christianity.   Ask a dominion christian of today and they will tell you that they envision a bibilical world where god's law is the only law and stoning a child to death for misbehaving would be the only moral thing to do in god's eyes.  Ask a serial killer or rapist the same question and the moral compass in their minds would come up with something totally different since they get off on doing their thing and do not have any moral qualms about it.  Ask George W. Bush and he'd have to look up the word in the dictionary first.

"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson
www.myspace.com/kenhill5150


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Enlightened self interest is the decider for me.

 

If it is beneficial to me, that is good. If it would ultimately be detrimental to me, that is bad.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
I'd say that my morality

I'd say that my morality comes from a complex mish-mash of sources.
I can think of 3 main types:

1) Social Pressure
Other people telling you what you should and shouldn't do.
I think here you're motivated by not upsetting people, mainly because upsetting them leads to an upset with you.

2) Natural Instincts
Sometimes you feel bad for hurting someone.
Sometimes you feel great for helping someone.
Sometimes you don't feel a specific pleasure or pain but just find yourself naturally doing "the right thing"

3) Idealism
There might be characteristics you admire in people.
Maybe real people you've met of in fictional people.
Or maybe just the ideal itself sounds appealing to you without needing a "demonstrator".
In this case, you have an ideal and try to live up to it.


I think that I've found all 3 sources both helpful and misleading.
There's times I've had regrets for listening to them, other times had regrets for ignoring them.
I think that over time, as I continue throwing out the bad and keeping the good, that I'll reach a reasonable balance.
That might be quite some time though!



EXC wrote:
No one ever does, we all just follow a strategy to maximize our pleasure and minimize our discomfort. We're all selfish bastards in our core being.

 

I've got two disagreements here.
One is with your psychological claims, the second is with your definition of "selfish bastard".

1) Humans aren't purely motivated by pleasure and pain.
It plays an important part but I think you overstate it.
We often act without thinking about pleasure or pain.
Sometimes we are following a routine or habit, or maybe acting spontaneously, but pleasure/pain is not on our minds.
Sometimes we have motivations that aren't led by our pleasure/pain responses.
Maybe we have a determination to solve a puzzle, even though contemplating it gives us frustration or even a headache, but we just want to get it solved.
Maybe you will counter this saying that we are motivated by the pleasure of completing it, or the irratation of not finishing it, but I don't think that'll work.
If someone who wanted to solve a puzzle was offered a pill that would give them the positive sensations of completing it (i.e. end of frustration, sense of accomplishment etc) then do you think they would choose the pill?
I think that they'd rather complete the puzzle.

I think you'll find that while pleasure/pain plays a large part in our motivation, it's easy to find counter examples where this isn't the case.

 

2) I think you misunderstand what people mean by "Selfish Bastard"
Selfish can simply mean "acting in one's own interests", but that doesn't seem to reflect how people use it when they use it with disgust.
Consider John and Bob.
John finds pleasure in giving up his food to help others - it gives him a warm glowing feeling.
Bob finds more pleasure in eating his food and does not feel reward for sharing it.
Both do what gives them pleasure, but while people would consider Bob to be selfish, they wouldn't feel the same way about John.
You might say that a more accurate definition of a "Selfish Bastard" is someone who only feels pleasure/pain regarding his own needs and doesn't with others.

 

Disagreements aside, I think that you make an important point; that humans are often too narcicistic to admit what it is that really motivates them.
They'd rather pretend to themselves that they're motivited by some neat ideal.
This lack of honesty with themselves leads to problems.
While I think that common morals do tend to be good, I think that people need to accept them for the right reasons.
After all, that is the only way to properly understand them and thereby follow them correctly.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: 1) Humans

Strafio wrote:

 


1) Humans aren't purely motivated by pleasure and pain.

It plays an important part but I think you overstate it.
We often act without thinking about pleasure or pain.

Well maybe we should have a debate over the scientific evidence. And over whether people have free will. I used to believe as you did, but the overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise.

We can observe how people behave when they have an inability or impaired ability to experience sensation of pleasure and pain. We can observe what happens with anti-depressant drugs that reduce one's ability to experience pain and pleasure.

People loose all motivation. They don't become these highly empathetic people that work for the betterment of society and to help there fellow man. They don't have motivation to do anything. If your theory was true, we could just give everyone anti-depressants and then everyone would care about his fellow man. People care about nothing when they have no pleasure or pain. To have empathy for others, you must be able to experience pleasure and pain in your own head.


Strafio wrote:

Maybe we have a determination to solve a puzzle, even though contemplating it gives us frustration or even a headache, but we just want to get it solved.

The joy of figuring things out. The joy of solving a problem. People that don't experience pleasure loose motivation to solve puzzles.
 


Strafio wrote:

If someone who wanted to solve a puzzle was offered a pill that would give them the positive sensations of completing it (i.e. end of frustration, sense of accomplishment etc) then do you think they would choose the pill?
I think that they'd rather complete the puzzle.

Depends on if they were addicted to the drug or not. In order to really believe the pill would bring the thrill, one would need to experience it first and become an addict.


Strafio wrote:

I think you'll find that while pleasure/pain plays a large part in our motivation, it's easy to find counter examples where this isn't the case. 

I don't think you can. People that can't experience pleasure just sit in room and do nothing.


Strafio wrote:

2) I think you misunderstand what people mean by "Selfish Bastard"
Selfish can simply mean "acting in one's own interests", but that doesn't seem to reflect how people use it when they use it with disgust.

I'm saying it tongue in cheek. I'm mocking the moralist that punish the 'selfish'. As social beings, we want to be liked and respected by others, we feel good. The 'your being selfish' label is used as a punishment, you'll be disliked by others if you act this way. So if I don't act like a 'selfish bastard' I'm still being a selfish bastard to get the reward of not acting selfish. All the world's a stage where we have to act like we're not selfish in social situations.


Strafio wrote:


You might say that a more accurate definition of a "Selfish Bastard" is someone who only feels pleasure/pain regarding his own needs and doesn't with others.

It's a different mapping of how an activity is mapped to the pleasure/pain response centers.


Strafio wrote:

Disagreements aside, I think that you make an important point; that humans are often too narcicistic to admit what it is that really motivates them.
They'd rather pretend to themselves that they're motivited by some neat ideal.
This lack of honesty with themselves leads to problems.
 

Don't you think marriages, friendships and all relationships could work better if we understood and admitted how things really work from the start? Instead of having to put on the 'act' all the time.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Psychological egoists are

Psychological egoists are making a claim that is reductive. It's basically the claim that all motives are selfish motives.

James Rachels wrote (and I tend to agree) that psychological egoists are making a silly mistake of misunderstanding the meaning of "selfishness". It's merely sophistry to claim that because a man takes satisfaction in helping his friends, that he is being selfish. Isn't an unselfish person one who derives satisfaction from helping others, while a selfish person does not?

If you ask a proponent of this theory what it would be like to encounter an unselfish act, the answer will not be forthcoming because it's not falsifiable. It is the theory that every action is always motivated by self-interest. So any seemingly disconfirming instance will be met with the reply that "since all motivations are simply forms of self-interest, the motive behind that act is also self-interest." That's just circular reasoning, or begging the question.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote:1) Humans

Strafio wrote:
1) Humans aren't purely motivated by pleasure and pain.

It plays an important part but I think you overstate it.
We often act without thinking about pleasure or pain.

EXC wrote:
Well maybe we should have a debate over the scientific evidence. And over whether people have free will. I used to believe as you did, but the overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise.

I suspect that I won't disagree with you with what the evidence is.
It's more likely that I am going to accuse you of jumping to "non sequiter" conclusions that do not follow from it.
(on another note, "Free Will" is a different issue altogether.
If I'm wrong about our debate on free will I could still be right in this topic.
On the other hand, if I was wrong in this topic then I could still be right about the "Free Will" topic.)

EXC wrote:
We can observe how people behave when they have an inability or impaired ability to experience sensation of pleasure and pain. We can observe what happens with anti-depressant drugs that reduce one's ability to experience pain and pleasure.

People loose all motivation. They don't become these highly empathetic people that work for the betterment of society and to help there fellow man. They don't have motivation to do anything. If your theory was true, we could just give everyone anti-depressants and then everyone would care about his fellow man. People care about nothing when they have no pleasure or pain. To have empathy for others, you must be able to experience pleasure and pain in your own head.

For example, I'm going to call a non-sequiter here.
You might have evidence that anti-depressants (that reduce one's ability to experience pain and pleasure) lead to a lack of motivation, but that's not enough to prove that it's the experience of pleasure and pain that causes motivation.
To do so, it would need to be shown that this elimination of the experience was the only effect of these drugs.
It is quite possible that these drugs neutralize other brain functions as well.
It could well be that many different brain functions cause motivation, and they get knocked out by the drug as well.


Strafio wrote:
Maybe we have a determination to solve a puzzle, even though contemplating it gives us frustration or even a headache, but we just want to get it solved.

EXC wrote:
The joy of figuring things out. The joy of solving a problem. People that don't experience pleasure loose motivation to solve puzzles.

Sometimes we get this joy, but not always.
I've seen and experienced this determination where there is no joy, or atleast not a significant pleasure that outweighs the pain (the frustration) of reaching it.

Strafio wrote:
If someone who wanted to solve a puzzle was offered a pill that would give them the positive sensations of completing it (i.e. end of frustration, sense of accomplishment etc) then do you think they would choose the pill?
I think that they'd rather complete the puzzle.

EXC wrote:
Depends on if they were addicted to the drug or not. In order to really believe the pill would bring the thrill, one would need to experience it first and become an addict.

So you think that the only reason that people reject this pill is because deep down they don't think it would really work?
I don't have the evidence to prove you wrong but I won't accept it myself until you prove it right.
I also disagree that pleasurable things are necessarily addictive - you only call it an addiction once you lose control.


Strafio wrote:
I think you'll find that while pleasure/pain plays a large part in our motivation, it's easy to find counter examples where this isn't the case.

EXC wrote:
I don't think you can. People that can't experience pleasure just sit in room and do nothing.

Again I'd like to see your evidence.
More than that, the experiments would need to single out that the experience of pleasure was the cause of the inaction, and not simply an extra effect of the real cause of the action.
(e.g. maybe these anti-depressants are knocking out more than just the pleasure/pain experiences, that they are knocking out several things in one go.


Strafio wrote:
2) I think you misunderstand what people mean by "Selfish Bastard"
Selfish can simply mean "acting in one's own interests", but that doesn't seem to reflect how people use it when they use it with disgust.

EXC wrote:
I'm saying it tongue in cheek. I'm mocking the moralist that punish the 'selfish'. As social beings, we want to be liked and respected by others, we feel good. The 'your being selfish' label is used as a punishment, you'll be disliked by others if you act this way. So if I don't act like a 'selfish bastard' I'm still being a selfish bastard to get the reward of not acting selfish. All the world's a stage where we have to act like we're not selfish in social situations.

Even when you put it like this the moralist is justified.
If a person's pleasure causes him to act against the interests of society, it's in society's interest to make this pleasure more painful so he will no longer act against society.
So the moralist is correct to punish "selfishness" (i.e. enjoying pleasures at society's cost) and commend selflessness (i.e. working for society's gain, even if it is pleasurable and therefore in their personal best interests to do so)
Infact, the moralist prefers that the person takes pleasure from "selflessness" because that way they will do it for the sake of it rather than be looking for an ulterior reward.
I think that an important part of education is to condition people to find "pro society" actions more pleasurable and "anti society" actions to be less so.


EXC wrote:
Don't you think marriages, friendships and all relationships could work better if we understood and admitted how things really work from the start? Instead of having to put on the 'act' all the time.

Absolutely.


D McClellan (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The source of morality

 Moralty is necessary because humans have to live together and doing it in peace and harmony is the ideal intent. The way that is done best is to practice the "golden rule" which is to treat others the way you'd honestly want them to treat you. Behaving this way is called love. The Bible, in 1John, says that God is love. Therefore, it was the power of love, the power of harmony that created the universe. Everything has a proper place. "A God saw the it was good," that it was in harmony with the rest of creation. This, love your fellow human beings at least as much as you love yourself is the morality that should be practiced universally in order to achieve peace and goodwill among mankind. It's the lesson Jesus preached and practiced as the perfect imitation, the perfect representative of God who is love and the reason that no one can be on good terms with God except by doing it his way. He was the way, the truth, and the life that every human being needs to emulate in order bring peace to this troubled planet. Atheism and the other world religions certainly can't do it. Why the need for Jesus? To show us the way in such clear terms that we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that we can't know and have a legitimate excuse for ignoring the real and obvious truth. If Jesus did it, anyone can do it if they really want to.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Dear D.McClellen.

                                The golden rule has you put it, was first written down by Confusius around 650  years before John.  Also that Jesus charactor your refer to was a ficticious creation by Saul of Tarsus in the mid first century CE.   

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Dear D.McClellen.

                                The golden rule has you put it, was first written down by Confusius around 650  years before John.  Also that Jesus charactor your refer to was a ficticious creation by Saul of Tarsus in the mid first century CE.   

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Dear D.McClellen.

                                The golden rule has you put it, was first written down by Confusius around 650  years before John.  Also that Jesus charactor your refer to was a ficticious creation by Saul of Tarsus in the mid first century CE.   

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Dear D.McClellen.

                                The golden rule has you put it, was first written down by Confusius around 650  years before John.  Also that Jesus charactor your refer to was a ficticious creation by Saul of Tarsus in the mid first century CE.   

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Dear D.McClellen.

                                The golden rule has you put it, was first written down by Confusius around 650  years before John.  Also that Jesus charactor your refer to was a ficticious creation by Saul of Tarsus in the mid first century CE.   

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

                                The golden rule has you put it, was first written down by Confusius around 650  years before John.  Also that Jesus charactor your refer to was a ficticious creation by Saul of Tarsus in the mid first century CE.   

 

 

 

 

 

                            Please, some moderator take away these extra posts!!!!!!!!!!

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I deconstruct, shout,

I deconstruct, shout, shriek, and claw at the "wrong" a la Shere Khan. It either gives me a reasonable "right", or it becomes unrecognizable.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
A moral act is more or less

A moral act is more or less an act that provides the greatest benefit to the greatest number over all of time.  However, people tend to prioritize themselves and those they are emotionally close to over total strangers.

Morality is circumstantial.  Stealing a single bread from a wealthy business doesn't do much to harm that business, but could save the life of an impoverished person.  But large-scale theft can ruin a business, so stealing is "usually wrong," which pretty much means "don't do it except in extreme circumstances."

That morality is dependent on circumstances does not make it subjective.  It just means we need to specify the circumstances before we can provide an objective verdict on an action.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote:A moral act is

Zaq wrote:

A moral act is more or less an act that provides the greatest benefit to the greatest number over all of time.  However, people tend to prioritize themselves and those they are emotionally close to over total strangers.

Morality is circumstantial.  Stealing a single bread from a wealthy business doesn't do much to harm that business, but could save the life of an impoverished person.  But large-scale theft can ruin a business, so stealing is "usually wrong," which pretty much means "don't do it except in extreme circumstances."

That morality is dependent on circumstances does not make it subjective.  It just means we need to specify the circumstances before we can provide an objective verdict on an action.

You have hit the evolutionary nail on the head right there. Our biggest problem as a species collectively is that we still don't understand our own biology and evolution. So what evolution defaults to is seeking the familiar and avoiding the unfamiliar. It stems from pattern seeking. The gazelle on the African continent  doesn't have time to think if it is just wind blowing the tall grass or a lion sneaking up in the grass.

Just as in evolution MIGHT does work, but like all of evolution, is not a given, and if a life form has to fight or flee, it will ATTEMPT to go with what works, even if what works is a mere placebo.

That same lion who can dominate other species can fall victim to other lions, and disease. So although might can work, and it seems to  be our alpha male goal, our flaw is that we perceive ourselves as above nature, and not part of nature.

Evolution does not favor anything. It spreads genes, which is ultimately the only goal of evolution, but neither might or flight is an absolute solution.

I often like to give the example of a bar fight. A 140lb man who is fat and frumpy and only 5 foot 7, spills a beer on a 6 foot 2 body builder weighing 300lbs. The smaller guy has kids, the buff guy has none. The buff guy starts a fight with the smaller guy who pulls out a gun and kills the buff  guy. Here we have an example of evolution. It is neither luck or might, but a combo of both combined with genetics.

Our species wants so desperately to make labels, and race, and nationality and class meaningful, but even if any of those individuals or groups achieve the alpha male status, the alpha male IN EVOLUTION is still subject to the same finality of death and eventually gets replaced.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Al G. Funguy
atheist
Posts: 33
Joined: 2012-01-13
User is offlineOffline
It is wrong to violate the

It is wrong to violate the non-aggression principle

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Quote:
NAP for short, is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. Aggression... is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Supporters of NAP use it to demonstrate the immorality of theft, vandalism, assault, and fraud. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense.

It is wrong to violate the NAP as shown by argumentation ethics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_Ethics

Quote:
Argumentation ethics, is an apriori, value-free deontological argument for libertarian ethics, developed by philosopher and austrian school economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe. The argument relies on the concept of discourse ethics developed by Jürgen Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel, misesian praxeology and further on the deontological ethics of economist Murry Rothbard. Argumentation ethics asserts the non-aggression principle is a logical presupposition of argumentation and so cannot be rationally denied.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'd say the NAP is a

I'd say the NAP is a construct which is in violation of reality and fails to recognise the obstacles life must thwart in order to exist. Aggression is absolutely necessary for ANY life form to remain alive. Less than 1% of life on Earth is capable of living without consuming life, which is inherently aggressive.

Anyone who supports such an idea is a fool.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
hello

Hello,

Clockcat is absolutely correct. That is how 100% all atheists that are consistent are to think. They try to come up with various ways to justify it in the absolutes (which aren't there i thought) so as to feel better. You do what you want. Now of course there is a society to deal with which sucks for an atheists, that's why they are all anarchists in their heart. But assuming you were in an anarchist state, there would be no existence of ethics or morals. It would simply be an outcry of what that famous satanst that choked on his vomit and died, Alister Crowley said:

"Do What Thou Wilt Is the Whole Of The Law."

When you get down to it, a satanist and an atheist are exactly the same, both worshipping self and doing whatever they want with failed attempts to ease their conscious of filth and sin.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Hello,

Clockcat is absolutely correct. That is how 100% all atheists that are consistent are to think. They try to come up with various ways to justify it in the absolutes (which aren't there i thought) so as to feel better. You do what you want. Now of course there is a society to deal with which sucks for an atheists, that's why they are all anarchists in their heart. But assuming you were in an anarchist state, there would be no existence of ethics or morals. It would simply be an outcry of what that famous satanst that choked on his vomit and died, Alister Crowley said:

"Do What Thou Wilt Is the Whole Of The Law."

When you get down to it, a satanist and an atheist are exactly the same, both worshipping self and doing whatever they want with failed attempts to ease their conscious of filth and sin.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Sure beats murdering disrespectful children which is the command of your god. Anyone interested can go through the rest of the OT and take the measure of your god by its law.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey Micky

Hey Micky,

The measure of the O.T Law was for a certain people over 4000 years ago. There are directives and directions in relation to the law today. We are not to put a fence over our flat roofs nor partakes of the daily sacrifice. Nor are there tribes set out for various functions.  That was via the old covenant.

I see you public education as a yout shining in your brainwashed mind. An atheist trying to tell a Christian about the Bible. lol.

Only in the area of ethics does that law apply and reflected in the New testament, dominately, Paul's epistles.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Hey Micky,

The measure of the O.T Law was for a certain people over 4000 years ago. There are directives and directions in relation to the law today. We are not to put a fence over our flat roofs nor partakes of the daily sacrifice. Nor are there tribes set out for various functions.  That was via the old covenant.

I see you public education as a yout shining in your brainwashed mind. An atheist trying to tell a Christian about the Bible. lol.

Only in the area of ethics does that law apply and reflected in the New testament, dominately, Paul's epistles.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

All that crap is from your god or it is not. If it is from your god it is the measure of your god. Its laws were primitive and savage at the time the begats suggest they were handed down compared to the laws of contemporary civilizations. Eight of the Big Ten were universal at that time and quite primitive compared to Egyptian law or the Code of Hamurabi both of which were older and no where near as savage.

If that is not your god then you have no foundation for Christianity. That you god suffered a guilt trip and reformed its ways around the year zero hardly speaks to eternal and unchanging as you would imagine it to be. That it though better of its early savagery is something you will have to explain to yourself. Why it was so savage and primitive at one time is in the text. If you reject the text you have a different god.

You may not like it when an atheist actually reads your text and throws it in your face but that is half the fun. The other half is watching you pretend to superiority when you have no credible reply. You clowns believe what you want. I sort of enjoy it.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Mickey

Mickey,

I'm brushing my teeth, but for you, since youre such a wannabe scientist, I'll stay a few more minutes.

the majority of this post was the logical fallacy of ad hominem abusive. Thus the invald argument that it is deserves no answer, but I will anyway despite your public school ways.

To say the law was primiative is an opinion thus not having it based on facts. Since you have no absolute way to state this then you fail. And since the burden of proof is on you to demonstate thus and you have not done this, you've failed.

Also, Egypt was a developed country and city before this. The Hebrews escape was around 1405 approximately, Egypt was over 1500 years earlier. Thus this was for a new nation.

The Egypts has thinking based on the occult and often had sex with cows. Not sure how having sex with cows is not a savage custom. While it is not via th law you talk about, it is the consequent of the Hathor Customer.

Actually, most atheists don't know how to read. But since you have not met the burden on this issue you have ultimately failed. Also, since you have not met the burden of the frame of reference you use to judge salvage from non salvage you fail. You just have an empty post with empthy ambigious assertions of hate towards the God that created youand the God that will throw you in a pit of hell so as to have you burn in torment every second of eternity.

Next time do your homework and meet the burden, this is embarassing for a physicist to act so poorly in academics.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(emphasis mine)

Zaq wrote:

A moral act is more or less an act that provides the greatest benefit to the greatest number over all of time.  However, people tend to prioritize themselves and those they are emotionally close to over total strangers.

Morality is circumstantial.  Stealing a single bread from a wealthy business doesn't do much to harm that business, but could save the life of an impoverished person.  But large-scale theft can ruin a business, so stealing is "usually wrong," which pretty much means "don't do it except in extreme circumstances."

Fail: appeal to humanitarianism; the "universal compassion" part of it, specifically.

(I suppose the new latin variant would be "ad humanitarianismus" )

Granted, you've come a step closer to providing an empirical and/or rational basis for humanitarian morality than most I've met, while on the net or otherwise.

Eye-wink

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Observer wrote:How do we

Observer wrote:

How do we determine right and wrong?

                                

How do I determine right from wrong ?  Why arbitrarily of course.   

 

Just like every Christian chooses arbitrarily how to interpret biblical morality.  

Some Christians believe that God compels them to adhere to strict pacifism while many other Christians are in complete disagreement.  

Some Christians see no moral conflict with homosexuality and biblical morality and others are adamantly opposed to such behavior.

Some Christians are against capital punishment while others are for it.

 Even with their vaunted biblical signpost to guide them Christians still simply choose what appeals to them and then bend scripture to support their

wildly differing ...yet supposedly biblical...viewpoints.

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Mickey,

I'm brushing my teeth,..... ( snip )...... meet the burden, this is embarassing for a physicist to act so poorly in academics.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

                       Does anyone still read Jean Chauv-it-in's self-important ramblings anymore ?   This troll takes himself waaaaay too seriously.  Fucking loser.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

Clockcat is absolutely correct. That is how 100% all atheists that are consistent are to think. They try to come up with various ways to justify it in the absolutes (which aren't there i thought) so as to feel better. You do what you want. Now of course there is a society to deal with which sucks for an atheists, that's why they are all anarchists in their heart. But assuming you were in an anarchist state, there would be no existence of ethics or morals. It would simply be an outcry of what that famous satanst that choked on his vomit and died, Alister Crowley said:

"Do What Thou Wilt Is the Whole Of The Law."

When you get down to it, a satanist and an atheist are exactly the same, both worshipping self and doing whatever they want with failed attempts to ease their conscious of filth and sin.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
bleh

bleh

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Mickey,

I'm brushing my teeth, but for you, since youre such a wannabe scientist, I'll stay a few more minutes.

the majority of this post was the logical fallacy of ad hominem abusive. Thus the invald argument that it is deserves no answer, but I will anyway despite your public school ways.

To say the law was primiative is an opinion thus not having it based on facts. Since you have no absolute way to state this then you fail. And since the burden of proof is on you to demonstate thus and you have not done this, you've failed.

Also, Egypt was a developed country and city before this. The Hebrews escape was around 1405 approximately, Egypt was over 1500 years earlier. Thus this was for a new nation.

The Egypts has thinking based on the occult and often had sex with cows. Not sure how having sex with cows is not a savage custom. While it is not via th law you talk about, it is the consequent of the Hathor Customer.

Actually, most atheists don't know how to read. But since you have not met the burden on this issue you have ultimately failed. Also, since you have not met the burden of the frame of reference you use to judge salvage from non salvage you fail. You just have an empty post with empthy ambigious assertions of hate towards the God that created youand the God that will throw you in a pit of hell so as to have you burn in torment every second of eternity.

Next time do your homework and meet the burden, this is embarassing for a physicist to act so poorly in academics.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Psycho

Hey Psycho,

Since you clearly don't understand logic via your above post, I will educate you.

In any given system, atheism, christianity, botany, has various universals that tie the subject into an area known as academics. Pizza, for example is pretty universal in meaning though the application of process may be different there are universals that absolutely tie it together.

Now, in atheism for example, there are consequences of consistency. So if you believe in A B and C, then you must follow it all the way to the consequence of A. Post Modernism for example is a consequent for atheism protbably around T for example.

Now, if you deviate from the consequence of consistency, that would then make you inconsistent and you would be deviating from that which you profess. Like if an atheist voted for George Bush lol, that would be a good example.

in Christianity, there is a consequence of consistency. I represent that pretty tightly. Those who profess faggots as christians, and smoke crack and hang out with prostitues would be antithetical to the consequence of consistency of  wha ta chrisitian is. If you are to far from this consistency, by definiton you are not of the system which you profess. For example, if an atheist started going to church and became a christian and still called himself an atheist, he can call himself whatever he wants but you judge and analyise via that consistency.

Thus the fake christians who embrace wicked things like the above, have deviate so far from the consequence of consistency via the Christian faith, they are no longer of the Christian faith and are on their way to hell with the faggots they so love to proclaim as their own.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hey

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey Psycho  .......... ( sounds of crickets chirping )

Respectfully,

John Calvin Nut hugger  ( Filthy Jews 3).

 

            What ?   Did you say something ?   I wasn't listening. 


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Zaq wrote:A

Kapkao wrote:

Zaq wrote:

A moral act is more or less an act that provides the greatest benefit to the greatest number over all of time.  However, people tend to prioritize themselves and those they are emotionally close to over total strangers.

Morality is circumstantial.  Stealing a single bread from a wealthy business doesn't do much to harm that business, but could save the life of an impoverished person.  But large-scale theft can ruin a business, so stealing is "usually wrong," which pretty much means "don't do it except in extreme circumstances."

Fail: appeal to humanitarianism; the "universal compassion" part of it, specifically.

(I suppose the new latin variant would be "ad humanitarianismus" )

Granted, you've come a step closer to providing an empirical and/or rational basis for humanitarian morality than most I've met, while on the net or otherwise.

Eye-wink

 

I'm sorry, the way my post was directed was unclear.  The OP asked two very different questions.  I was responding to the first, regarding how humans tend to determine what to do and what not to do in ethical-style questions.  In most common scenarioes, maximizing payoff to humans in a rough sort of self + family --> friends --> tribesmen --> humans --> cute animals --> else priorty is a fairly accurate description of what humans seek when making decisions.  Maybe this is why humanitarianism is popular?  I don't know, but I do know that I'm not "appealing to humanitarianism" when respoding to this question.  Humanitarianism isn't the justification for this belief.  I'm not presenting any justification because I'm not presenting a prescription.  I'm presenting a description.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
NAP doesn't seem to work. 

NAP doesn't seem to work.  A tiger has to kill in order to live.  Should it only kill things that attack it first?  But then if all things follow NAP, the tiger will die (of course, if the tiger doesn't follow NAP something else will die).

 

Here's a different and more clear-cut scenario: Hurricane Katrina.  There were many instances where people had to salvage supplies in order to survive.  These supplies were the property of businesses and were not paid for (there was nobody there to accept payment anyway).  So these people stole in order to live.  Yet they did not do so in response to aggression.  Does that mean they were in the wrong?

Or perhaps you'd like to say that the hurricane was an agression, and so this theft was only a response to an agression.  But what does it mean to call a natural and entirely non-cognitive event like a hurrican an "agression?"  Must the hurricane have come from some other "aggression?"  Are proton-proton scattering events "aggressive," and does the answer depend on whether or not the events cause hurricanes?  And what exactly does one get out of saying that a hurricane has violated some moral principle?  Is the HIV virus immoral?

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote: ..... So these

Zaq wrote:

 

..... So these people stole in order to live... Does that mean they were in the wrong?

 

 

    Did they steal only those things necessary to remain alive or did they appropriate other things such as television sets, jewelry, furniture, alcoholic beverages, and other non essential material goods ?   After the hurricane passed and the shop owners returned did these people make any attempt at restitution or was their attitude simply one of "fuck it, who gives a shit" ?


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(emphasis mine)

Zaq wrote:

I'm not presenting any justification because I'm not presenting a prescription I'm presenting a description.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Btw... I wasn't aware this

Btw... I wasn't aware this thread was about ethics; just "right and wrong".

I have an ethic that is relatively easy to follow: "Success is the slow judge of right and wrong."

 

edit3;Also... would anyone believe me if I said I was literally ghost-typing posts on to the web; that I was "dead (yet) with everlasting life"?

(edit4;the end of Zaq's post got me thinking and shit Laughing out loud )

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Mickey,

I'm brushing my teeth, but for you, since youre such a wannabe scientist, I'll stay a few more minutes.

the majority of this post was the logical fallacy of ad hominem abusive. Thus the invald argument that it is deserves no answer, but I will anyway despite your public school ways.

Of course it is ad hominem as primitive, illterate savages invented your god. However for a believer it should be correctly called ad theonem.

Quote:
To say the law was primiative is an opinion thus not having it based on facts. Since you have no absolute way to state this then you fail. And since the burden of proof is on you to demonstate thus and you have not done this, you've failed.

Having read the Code of Hammurabit as anyone but believers can it is clearly almost modern, not primitive, savage, arbitrary and capricious as is the Pentateuch.

If you are literate you can read it yourself.

Quote:
Also, Egypt was a developed country and city before this. The Hebrews escape was around 1405 approximately, Egypt was over 1500 years earlier. Thus this was for a new nation.

Egypt was never a city either under the common Greek name or by its own name, the land of the valley [of the Nile]. There is no evidence there were ever any Hebrews in Egypt and no one today believes that children's fable. It did not appear until it was invented as a Septuagint story. It was not accepted as factual by priests of the Yahweh cult in the late 1st c. AD as you can learn by reading Against Apion. I know, expecting you to read is expecting too much.

Quote:
The Egypts has thinking based on the occult and often had sex with cows. Not sure how having sex with cows is not a savage custom. While it is not via th law you talk about, it is the consequent of the Hathor Customer.

Nor is it clear why you are telling this lie. Good Christians alway lie for their lord?

Quote:
Actually, most atheists don't know how to read. But since you have not met the burden on this issue you have ultimately failed. Also, since you have not met the burden of the frame of reference you use to judge salvage from non salvage you fail. You just have an empty post with empthy ambigious assertions of hate towards the God that created youand the God that will throw you in a pit of hell so as to have you burn in torment every second of eternity.

Next time do your homework and meet the burden, this is embarassing for a physicist to act so poorly in academics.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Savage is murdering children for disrespect. Savage is slaughtering animals to maximize suffering. Savage is murdering people for speaking the magic name. Savage is animal sacrifice itself.

Believers never seem to notice their "real" god was no different from all the invented gods.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Zaq

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Zaq wrote:

 

..... So these people stole in order to live... Does that mean they were in the wrong?

 

 

    Did they steal only those things necessary to remain alive or did they appropriate other things such as television sets, jewelry, furniture, alcoholic beverages, and other non essential material goods ?   After the hurricane passed and the shop owners returned did these people make any attempt at restitution or was their attitude simply one of "fuck it, who gives a shit" ?

Whoops... "ethics" fail. Damn you're good, PDW. You almost make me wanna convert back to humanism... but not quite.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

Clockcat is absolutely correct. That is how 100% all atheists that are consistent are to think. They try to come up with various ways to justify it in the absolutes (which aren't there i thought) so as to feel better. You do what you want. Now of course there is a society to deal with which sucks for an atheists, that's why they are all anarchists in their heart. But assuming you were in an anarchist state, there would be no existence of ethics or morals. It would simply be an outcry of what that famous satanst that choked on his vomit and died, Alister Crowley said:

"Do What Thou Wilt Is the Whole Of The Law."

When you get down to it, a satanist and an atheist are exactly the same, both worshipping self and doing whatever they want with failed attempts to ease their conscious of filth and sin.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Another episode of jean's stupidity. lol

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.