Question for the atheists?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I understand your morality does not come from anywhere? But what is it? Where are the building blocks? You say some things are wrong or some things make sense, while other things are right or make logical sense. What premises are you basing these conclusions on?

Second, you are correct that organized religions may draw some morally absurd conclusions. I am not here to defend silly old men in funny hats that burn things. But one thing the silly old men in funny hats going for them is that we know what building blocks they are working with when they make moral conclusions. You may not like the blocks. In fact you seem to think there are better blocks out there to work with.

If that is the case, point me to the blocks. If I should not base my life on the 10 commandments in the Bible, which commandments or set of rules should I base them on? What are those rules? Teach us!!!

I would, again, direct you to research Plato's Allegory of 'The Cave' or the research of feral children.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


How is caring for the weak not pragmatic?

There are more measures of usefulness than strength of body.

Children are weak and useless until they've grown, but very necessary. The elderly are weak, but a storehouse of information that has repeatedly saved the strong's bacon.

To an extant, yes, morality is embedded in our genes. recent studies have shown that the idea of fair play is present in very young babies, as is the capacity to love. But it is also present in most critters tested for it, from monkeys to parrots to mice. I'm pretty sure the mice haven't been proselytized yet, so religion has no bearing there.

No pills, seldom work for long and never for all situations.

I'm a pragmatist; morality works because more people survive better and in more comfort than if it didn't exist. It is its own reward, when viewing things on a societal level.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

I understand your morality does not come from anywhere? But what is it? Where are the building blocks? You say some things are wrong or some things make sense, while other things are right or make logical sense. What premises are you basing these conclusions on?

Second, you are correct that organized religions may draw some morally absurd conclusions. I am not here to defend silly old men in funny hats that burn things. But one thing the silly old men in funny hats going for them is that we know what building blocks they are working with when they make moral conclusions. You may not like the blocks. In fact you seem to think there are better blocks out there to work with.

If that is the case, point me to the blocks. If I should not base my life on the 10 commandments in the Bible, which commandments or set of rules should I base them on? What are those rules? Teach us!!!

Truthfully, no one really cares what you use there are countless things you can base your morale decisions around, ultimately the only thing that matters is what you do in the end.

All people want is for other people to be good people. Its that simple. Religious people seem to be the only ones who care about how others go about being morale, and even go as far as to question peoples Morales simply due to a lack of belief in God. Just like some Atheists will question Religious peoples morals, as if they are all evil people without God.

In the end we all come to the conclusion the same way, by looking at the negatives and the positives. Whether that be negatives because you are turning your back on God, or turning your back on your fellow man. The emotion in the end is all the same. The result is the same. We just take our own paths getting there.

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
I would, again, direct you to research Plato's Allegory of 'The Cave' or the research of feral children.

This

Wish I thought to bring up Feral Children.

Originally posted by 001ggg100
First off, this is really a foolish question. To pose it to a specific group while excluding all others... What purpose does it serve?

As for morality, why does it have to necessarily come from a higher power? I think morality is a by product of survival of our species and our intelligence. .

intelligence yes survival, i dont think so. i think most predatory animals would kill to make themselves more confortable. i beleive morality is a product of civilization, in order to work and live together in groups we need to have a sense of right and wrong..... so if the OP took out one sentance, then everyone would would say no to killing the man.. but as soon as he mentioned that no one would ever find out, things changed. and i bet even now people are saying they wouldnt kill because they feel they are being judged but inside they are thinking 'hell yeah, of course id kill him'

reply to post by apacheman


When I speak of weak people, I speak of people who are not useful or will never be useful to society. Steve Jobs may have never won a weight lifting contest, but he did a useful thing or two.

An infant may be a drain on society today, but the infant has the potential to become a productive and useful member of society. Evolutionarily speaking, caring for infants is an investment in society's future.

Some individuals are a drain on society and will always be a drain on society. Certain homeless people will never get their act together. They will never produce anything of any value to anyone and will continue to be a drain on society's resources. These people have no friends and have no contact with their relatives. These people may commit petty crimes, intimidate people, harass people, and make the streets dirty.

Elderly people are another example of a group that can also be a drain on society. While many elderly people may have once been productive, many reach a point where they are too sick and frail to do anything productive. America's government is in a fiscal crisis because it has to spend over half its money on social security and medicare for old people. From a ruthlessly pragmatic perspective, it should be completely acceptable to kill these people.

Yet our morality clearly dictates the opposite. Our morality says it is wrong to kill people, even if they are poor, dirty, or lack any social influence. In fact, morality compels us to help these people rather than let them die. Morality, in this regard, is not pragmatic. It is not Darwinian. Animals often cast off the weakest members of the herd while people seem to help htem.

reply to post by DaveNorris


I am working on the assumption that most people, including most atheists would not kill the man simply because it was the moral thing to do. I did want to eliminate fear of being a social outcast, legal liabilities, etc. from the equation because these would be easy cop-outs.

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
reply to post by andersensrm

 

I wouldn't dare claim to know the thoughts and languages of leopards, or any animal for that matter. The more we learn of animals, the less we realize we know. I've witnessed my own Husky school her children, including punishing them for bad behavior by making one of her puppies sit in the corner for a time out. I'd assume leopards teach their young in a similar manner. Mothers learn to be motherly from their own mothers, and that learned behavior becomes what is known as maternal "instinct" though it isn't instinct at all.
You could say a leopard saved another animal as proof of instinctual morals. Then I could say a father polar bear eats it's own child to save itself is proof of no instinctual morals at all. Again, we don't dare try to understand the thoughts and motivations of animals we can't directly speak to and understand.

edit on 28-12-2011 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)

But if a bear eats its own child, this isn't proof that there are no morals, just that this particular bear decided to ignore them. Mothers may learn from their own mothers, but then how can you explain instances where there is mother abandonment, and somehow the babies survive, and turn out to be just like their mothers. I dare to try to understand the thoughts and motivations of animals, because I am one, and if I don't try to interpret my own thoughts and motivations, then I might as well interpret nothing. Which then leads me to whats the point. If morals don't really exist and just a manifestation of our will, why did we create it, why do animals who seemingly have no way of determining what it is, use it. The only thing that makes sense to me, is that it starts from within ourselves, which would then say something about the universe, since the universe created us. To say that morals don't really exist, and that there just something we teach around here for our good, just means you're ignoring your own consicousness which is telling you the right thing. Many people don't understand that not everything in your consciousness comes from you.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


and like i said, once you eliminate the fear of repercussions most people would certainly kill the man with the jewel inside him, although they more than likely wouldnt admit it to anyone because then there would be repercussions (people judging you). i myself only admitted it because you are all people that i will most likely never meet

Are you defining "moral" as in your term "moral force" by the same definition that we humans have assigned to it?
And do you intend by your statement that it applies to humans only?

If indeed there were such a "moral force" don't you think it would apply to everything in this world and others?

You may have noticed that in nature there is no such thing.
All behaviors of everything in this world are directed at survival.
That is survival of the individual and his family and/or tribe.
Therefore killing another within the tribe or extended tribe is wrong because it endangers the survival of the tribe.
In the recent past Humans have decreed that all other humans have a right to live, therefore killing them was wrong. This is a purely human decision; not something that comes from any "god/creator", "higher intellignece" or "moral force"

I would kill him. That Jewel would help my family and they mean more to me than some random bloke in the wilderness that nobody likes.

People have fear of death. But why is this. We have no proof that life ends after death, just that our physical bodies stop working. But whats the difference between someones who alive and well, and someone whose dead. If you suffocate someone to death, after they have dies, all their parts and organs still work, now that you have removed your hand, pillow etc. but the person is not breathing. His\her spirit, or what we'd call a soul, is gone. Are we our bodies or our soul? I think it to be the latter in which case life does not end after death. Yet we fear it beyond anything else. Surely some would rather get torchered for days on end then die. Yet we have no proof that death is a horrible and terminal experience. All we can do is guess as to what happens. So where does this innate fear of death come from? It comes from within, no one teaches us that. Just ask a baby whose kicking and screaming, all things done to try and prevent and avoid death. Why would a baby with no fear of death even bother kicking and screaming? Just like our innate fear of death comes from within, so does our morality. Before we go to kill something there is always something going on in your head, the deciscion process on whether or not to go through with it. This morality process comes from within, however ultimately it is up to the individual to choose which is right or wrong. Some however ignore the process altogether and just do it without thinking or hesitating. This would be one without morals. Morals are ultimatley defined as good or bad by us, but we didn't create them, we merely choose which is right and which is wrong.

Originally posted by andersensrm
People have fear of death

I don't fear death.

I do fear pain.

Originally posted by andersensrm

But if a bear eats its own child, this isn't proof that there are no morals, just that this particular bear decided to ignore them. Mothers may learn from their own mothers, but then how can you explain instances where there is mother abandonment, and somehow the babies survive, and turn out to be just like their mothers. I dare to try to understand the thoughts and motivations of animals, because I am one, and if I don't try to interpret my own thoughts and motivations, then I might as well interpret nothing. Which then leads me to whats the point. If morals don't really exist and just a manifestation of our will, why did we create it, why do animals who seemingly have no way of determining what it is, use it. The only thing that makes sense to me, is that it starts from within ourselves, which would then say something about the universe, since the universe created us. To say that morals don't really exist, and that there just something we teach around here for our good, just means you're ignoring your own consicousness which is telling you the right thing. Many people don't understand that not everything in your consciousness comes from you.

If morals are inherent from a higher power, then the ability to ignore them destroys the entire idea of "God's law lives in all of us" and "free will" in one fail swoop. One animal, abandoned at a young age will likely grow up and behave the same way (ie>learned abandonment), and an animal who was nurtured from birth and taught may grow up and behave as it's mother did. Then you have variables such as diet/environment that can affect the psychology of said animal. Again, I wouldn't dare give a specific "truth" to the behaviors and motivations of animals.
I can say that morals are learned through human behavior for the sake of survival. If you kill anyone that challenges you for food in this world, you'll soon find yourself alone and prone to death after injury or from predators.
There's a great scene in the new 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' when Ceasar illustrates to another Ape the purpose of numbers, using a broken stick. I can imagine early cave people communicating in a similar manner to illustrate the universal truth of "strength in numbers", which may have been the first reason for not killing another of your species in ancient times.

[I've looked for that scene from the movie online, but have been unable to find it]

Originally posted by fatpastyhead
I would kill him. That Jewel would help my family and they mean more to me than some random bloke in the wilderness that nobody likes.

I wonder how long you could protect it before someone would come to kill you for it.

Don't kill for something you are not willing to give your own life to protect.

The burden will break you.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by fatpastyhead
I would kill him. That Jewel would help my family and they mean more to me than some random bloke in the wilderness that nobody likes.

I wonder how long you could protect it before someone would come to kill you for it.

Don't kill for something you are not willing to give your own life to protect.

The burden will break you.

With Love,

Your Brother

Oh of course. That goes without saying but I might be likeable and I might not be stuck in the wilderness and I just might not let someone take it from me so easily.

To be honest this whole scenario is kinda silly IMO.

Originally posted by fatpastyhead
To be honest this whole scenario is kinda silly IMO.

It is my friend.

Lets go have a beer and I will share my jewels with you.

How is your family?

Everything going well with you?

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by fatpastyhead
To be honest this whole scenario is kinda silly IMO.

It is my friend.

Lets go have a beer and I will share my jewels with you.

How is your family?

Everything going well with you?

With Love,

Your Brother

Absolutely great, thanks. I hope yours are to.

as fot the beers, I hope you are buying

reply to post by andersensrm


I fail to see how that experiment can be transferred to human psychology.

ALS