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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 

Again, congratulations. We need more politicians like that.

 

 

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.

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.
 

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.
 

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.

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.
 

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".
 

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.

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.

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!

 

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.

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.

 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.

                                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.   

 

                                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!!!!!!!!!!

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.

It is wrong to violate the non-aggression principle

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

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

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

 

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).

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).

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).

                                

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.

 

 

 

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

 

 

Another episode of jean's stupidity. lol