Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A question to atheists.

SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 7:26:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Where does the authrity for your moralities come from?

Lets say the whole world is atheist, then who or where do we take our instruction from?.

Who decides what is right or wrong?.

Who or what has the authority to tell us how and why we should act in a certain way?.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 7:27:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 7:26:02 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
Where does the authrity for your moralities come from?

Lets say the whole world is atheist, then who or where do we take our instruction from?.

Who decides what is right or wrong?.

Who or what has the authority to tell us how and why we should act in a certain way?.

I don't know why you are assuming that people cannot regulate their on behavior and why they need someone to tell them how to act.

Morals come from contracts. Simply put, I make contracts with other people to respect their rights as long as they respect mine.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 7:42:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
THE GAME.

That is the answer.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 7:52:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 7:26:02 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
Where does the authrity for your moralities come from?

Ourselves. Since we are the only ones effected by it, it makes more sense that it comes from us.


Lets say the whole world is atheist, then who or where do we take our instruction from?.

Are you saying, we cannot instruct ourselves?


Who decides what is right or wrong?.


Who or what has the authority to tell us how and why we should act in a certain way?.

We are our own authority.
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 8:05:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Alright well lets say someone killed an innocent person. Some people think he should be put to death and others think he should be put in jail for life, and he thinks there is nothing wrong with what he done and he should be allowed to go about his business as usual. Who's moralty do we listen to?.
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 8:11:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is right and wrong, morality is not subjective. If a man treated a woman badly but believed what he was doing was not wrong because he believed women as inferior to men, then his morals would be wrong.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 8:32:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 8:05:24 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
Alright well lets say someone killed an innocent person. Some people think he should be put to death and others think he should be put in jail for life, and he thinks there is nothing wrong with what he done and he should be allowed to go about his business as usual. Who's moralty do we listen to?.

You don't listen to any of them. The killer most likely has something wrong with his brain, has some messed up biology, or has been effected by his environment and external stimulus in some way which ultimately led to that killing. It wouldn't be moral to put this man in jail under a traditional view of punishment, or to put him to death for what he has done.

What makes the most sense, is to hospitalize and to treat this person, all while removing him from society. If our species is to flourish, it's an objective fact that we can't have people killing innocent people, this is just absurd. However, they don't need to be thrown behind bars where they will just get into more trouble, and they don't need to lose their lives.

Morality can even be seen in the animal kingdom, self sacrifice for the pack and co-operation are tools needed for survival.
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 8:54:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 8:32:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2012 8:05:24 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
Alright well lets say someone killed an innocent person. Some people think he should be put to death and others think he should be put in jail for life, and he thinks there is nothing wrong with what he done and he should be allowed to go about his business as usual. Who's moralty do we listen to?.

You don't listen to any of them. The killer most likely has something wrong with his brain, has some messed up biology, or has been effected by his environment and external stimulus in some way which ultimately led to that killing. It wouldn't be moral to put this man in jail under a traditional view of punishment, or to put him to death for what he has done.

What makes the most sense, is to hospitalize and to treat this person, all while removing him from society. If our species is to flourish, it's an objective fact that we can't have people killing innocent people, this is just absurd. However, they don't need to be thrown behind bars where they will just get into more trouble, and they don't need to lose their lives.

Morality can even be seen in the animal kingdom, self sacrifice for the pack and co-operation are tools needed for survival.

You have exactly made my point for me this is your opinion on what shoud be done based on you moral perception, however who says your moral perception is right. What gives you the authority to hospitalise a person, who in thier mind are morrally right in their action. Religion and theism give a foundation for our moral beliefs were as if everyone is left to their own perception without guidance then we have confusion.

For example many people believe that man who killed 78 people in Norway should be put to death, many believe he should be jailed indefinitely, and many believe he should be hospitalised, and to some he is a hero so who is right?.

Also I never said you cannot have good morals without religion. Most people inheritently have a sense of what is right and wrong, and where did this come from?.

Religion however gives a basis and a direction for our values to follow. Without religion who has the authority to tell us our actions are right or wrong.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 9:17:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 8:54:37 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
At 4/29/2012 8:32:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2012 8:05:24 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
Alright well lets say someone killed an innocent person. Some people think he should be put to death and others think he should be put in jail for life, and he thinks there is nothing wrong with what he done and he should be allowed to go about his business as usual. Who's moralty do we listen to?.

You don't listen to any of them. The killer most likely has something wrong with his brain, has some messed up biology, or has been effected by his environment and external stimulus in some way which ultimately led to that killing. It wouldn't be moral to put this man in jail under a traditional view of punishment, or to put him to death for what he has done.

What makes the most sense, is to hospitalize and to treat this person, all while removing him from society. If our species is to flourish, it's an objective fact that we can't have people killing innocent people, this is just absurd. However, they don't need to be thrown behind bars where they will just get into more trouble, and they don't need to lose their lives.

Morality can even be seen in the animal kingdom, self sacrifice for the pack and co-operation are tools needed for survival.

You have exactly made my point for me this is your opinion on what shoud be done based on you moral perception, however who says your moral perception is right. What gives you the authority to hospitalise a person, who in thier mind are morrally right in their action.Religion and theism give a foundation for our moral beliefs were as if everyone is left to their own perception without guidance then we have confusion.

My opinion isn't just an opinion, it's based on what we know about humans, and about basic goals. Once you have a goal, you have an objective standard. For example, if the goal was to have the most round 3D object, then a sphere would be objectively perfect. So if the goal is to survive collectively (which it objectively is, unless the benefits of life are not up to par with the benefits of death subjectively), then something has to be done about people who kill innocent people. This person has to be removed, now, how they get removed and what the end game is, is up for debate. There are still objectively better answers than others.

Also, religion is man made, I'm a man, what makes the people who made these religion's opinions more valid than mine according to you? Religion doesn't get you objective morality, you take that religion is based on the world of God by faith, not evidence.



For example many people believe that man who killed 78 people in Norway should be put to death, many believe he should be jailed indefinitely, and many believe he should be hospitalised, and to some he is a hero so who is right?.

The objective truth, is that he needs to be removed from society. How this is done is up for debate, but based on what we know about free will and neuroscience, hospitalizing him would be the most logical option. It's not like he chose the brain he had, so how could you logically "punish" him? He obviously, needs help, not punishment.



Also I never said you cannot have good morals without religion. Most people inheritently have a sense of what is right and wrong, and where did this come from?.

Evolution.


Religion however gives a basis and a direction for our values to follow. Without religion who has the authority to tell us our actions are right or wrong.

Religion is man made, I can write down rules better than the 10 commandments in 3 minutes, what makes the 10 commandments objectively better than what I could write down?

You just take by faith that it's the word of God, you have no evidence. So just claiming that you believe in religion, doesn't give you a true or solid basis for objective morality. It's not based on any science or any true understanding of the world.
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 9:54:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 9:17:12 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2012 8:54:37 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
At 4/29/2012 8:32:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2012 8:05:24 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
Alright well lets say someone killed an innocent person. Some people think he should be put to death and others think he should be put in jail for life, and he thinks there is nothing wrong with what he done and he should be allowed to go about his business as usual. Who's moralty do we listen to?.

You don't listen to any of them. The killer most likely has something wrong with his brain, has some messed up biology, or has been effected by his environment and external stimulus in some way which ultimately led to that killing. It wouldn't be moral to put this man in jail under a traditional view of punishment, or to put him to death for what he has done.

What makes the most sense, is to hospitalize and to treat this person, all while removing him from society. If our species is to flourish, it's an objective fact that we can't have people killing innocent people, this is just absurd. However, they don't need to be thrown behind bars where they will just get into more trouble, and they don't need to lose their lives.

Morality can even be seen in the animal kingdom, self sacrifice for the pack and co-operation are tools needed for survival.

You have exactly made my point for me this is your opinion on what shoud be done based on you moral perception, however who says your moral perception is right. What gives you the authority to hospitalise a person, who in thier mind are morrally right in their action.Religion and theism give a foundation for our moral beliefs were as if everyone is left to their own perception without guidance then we have confusion.

My opinion isn't just an opinion, it's based on what we know about humans, and about basic goals. Once you have a goal, you have an objective standard. For example, if the goal was to have the most round 3D object, then a sphere would be objectively perfect. So if the goal is to survive collectively (which it objectively is, unless the benefits of life are not up to par with the benefits of death subjectively), then something has to be done about people who kill innocent people. This person has to be removed, now, how they get removed and what the end game is, is up for debate. There are still objectively better answers than others.

Also, religion is man made, I'm a man, what makes the people who made these religion's opinions more valid than mine according to you? Religion doesn't get you objective morality, you take that religion is based on the world of God by faith, not evidence.



For example many people believe that man who killed 78 people in Norway should be put to death, many believe he should be jailed indefinitely, and many believe he should be hospitalised, and to some he is a hero so who is right?.

The objective truth, is that he needs to be removed from society. How this is done is up for debate, but based on what we know about free will and neuroscience, hospitalizing him would be the most logical option. It's not like he chose the brain he had, so how could you logically "punish" him? He obviously, needs help, not punishment.



Also I never said you cannot have good morals without religion. Most people inheritently have a sense of what is right and wrong, and where did this come from?.

Evolution.


Religion however gives a basis and a direction for our values to follow. Without religion who has the authority to tell us our actions are right or wrong.

Religion is man made, I can write down rules better than the 10 commandments in 3 minutes, what makes the 10 commandments objectively better than what I could write down?

You just take by faith that it's the word of God, you have no evidence. So just claiming that you believe in religion, doesn't give you a true or solid basis for objective morality. It's not based on any science or any true understanding of the world.

You keep saying things are up for debate, thats exactly my point, do we go by majority vote. We know in the past whole societies have behaved wrongly. So how do we decide. The rights and wrongs of abortion are up for debate, the rights and wrongs of euthanasia are up for debate. The rights and wrongs of many things are up for debate. The thing is one perspective is right and the other wrong, both sides believe their moral view on the sbject is right so who decides it is or not?.

Also if our morality is defined as our goal to survive then through time our moral values can change. So what I believe you are saying is that what is wrong toady maybe not considered wrong in decade, or in a century from now, is that correct?.

Evolution answers only how not why.

Religion being man made is also only a personal opinion you have.

Did you ever ask why man has the desire to have religious faith?, was it implanted in mans conciousness for a reason?. Is there a God who wants us to try to know him?.

These are questions we should try and get the answers to.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 10:41:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 9:54:10 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
At 4/29/2012 9:17:12 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2012 8:54:37 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
At 4/29/2012 8:32:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2012 8:05:24 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
Alright well lets say someone killed an innocent person. Some people think he should be put to death and others think he should be put in jail for life, and he thinks there is nothing wrong with what he done and he should be allowed to go about his business as usual. Who's moralty do we listen to?.

You don't listen to any of them. The killer most likely has something wrong with his brain, has some messed up biology, or has been effected by his environment and external stimulus in some way which ultimately led to that killing. It wouldn't be moral to put this man in jail under a traditional view of punishment, or to put him to death for what he has done.

What makes the most sense, is to hospitalize and to treat this person, all while removing him from society. If our species is to flourish, it's an objective fact that we can't have people killing innocent people, this is just absurd. However, they don't need to be thrown behind bars where they will just get into more trouble, and they don't need to lose their lives.

Morality can even be seen in the animal kingdom, self sacrifice for the pack and co-operation are tools needed for survival.

You have exactly made my point for me this is your opinion on what shoud be done based on you moral perception, however who says your moral perception is right. What gives you the authority to hospitalise a person, who in thier mind are morrally right in their action.Religion and theism give a foundation for our moral beliefs were as if everyone is left to their own perception without guidance then we have confusion.

My opinion isn't just an opinion, it's based on what we know about humans, and about basic goals. Once you have a goal, you have an objective standard. For example, if the goal was to have the most round 3D object, then a sphere would be objectively perfect. So if the goal is to survive collectively (which it objectively is, unless the benefits of life are not up to par with the benefits of death subjectively), then something has to be done about people who kill innocent people. This person has to be removed, now, how they get removed and what the end game is, is up for debate. There are still objectively better answers than others.

Also, religion is man made, I'm a man, what makes the people who made these religion's opinions more valid than mine according to you? Religion doesn't get you objective morality, you take that religion is based on the world of God by faith, not evidence.



For example many people believe that man who killed 78 people in Norway should be put to death, many believe he should be jailed indefinitely, and many believe he should be hospitalised, and to some he is a hero so who is right?.

The objective truth, is that he needs to be removed from society. How this is done is up for debate, but based on what we know about free will and neuroscience, hospitalizing him would be the most logical option. It's not like he chose the brain he had, so how could you logically "punish" him? He obviously, needs help, not punishment.



Also I never said you cannot have good morals without religion. Most people inheritently have a sense of what is right and wrong, and where did this come from?.

Evolution.


Religion however gives a basis and a direction for our values to follow. Without religion who has the authority to tell us our actions are right or wrong.

Religion is man made, I can write down rules better than the 10 commandments in 3 minutes, what makes the 10 commandments objectively better than what I could write down?

You just take by faith that it's the word of God, you have no evidence. So just claiming that you believe in religion, doesn't give you a true or solid basis for objective morality. It's not based on any science or any true understanding of the world.

You keep saying things are up for debate, thats exactly my point, do we go by majority vote. We know in the past whole societies have behaved wrongly. So how do we decide. The rights and wrongs of abortion are up for debate, the rights and wrongs of euthanasia are up for debate. The rights and wrongs of many things are up for debate. The thing is one perspective is right and the other wrong, both sides believe their moral view on the sbject is right so who decides it is or not?.

Also if our morality is defined as our goal to survive then through time our moral values can change. So what I believe you are saying is that what is wrong toady maybe not considered wrong in decade, or in a century from now, is that correct?.

Evolution answers only how not why.

Religion being man made is also only a personal opinion you have.

Did you ever ask why man has the desire to have religious faith?, was it implanted in mans conciousness for a reason?. Is there a God who wants us to try to know him?.

These are questions we should try and get the answers to.

"You keep saying things are up for debate, thats exactly my point"

I said certain specifics are up for debate, but the basic principles aren't, so that was a straw man.

"So how do we decide."

Whatever act strays furthest away from the worst possible misery for every conscious creature and/or creature who feel pain, while also leaning closer towards the most possible well being for every conscious creature and/or creature who feel pain, is the most moral.

Whatever act straws furthest away from the most possible well being for every conscious creature and/or creature who feel pain, while leaning closer towards the worst possible misery for every conscious creature and/or creature who feel pain, is the most immoral.

"Also if our morality is defined as our goal to survive then through time our moral values can change. So what I believe you are saying is that what is wrong toady maybe not considered wrong in decade, or in a century from now, is that correct?."

Specifics regarding moral values can be subjective yes, but the basic principles don't change. You are confusing the two, which is where I think your confusion lies.

"Evolution answers only how not why."

There is a fine line between how and why. Why do we have morals? Because we evolved and now we experience feelings of empathy for others which helps with survival. How did morals come about? They came about by evolution working which gives rise to feelings of empathy in the animal kingdom.

"Religion being man made is also only a personal opinion you have."

It not being man made is just a personal opinion you have, thus, you have no objective basis for objective morality. However, my stance is based on objective facts about reality.

"Did you ever ask why man has the desire to have religious faith?, was it implanted in mans conciousness for a reason?. Is there a God who wants us to try to know him?"

Man desires to have religious faith because we are the only species who is smart enough to figure out that no matter what happens, we will die. Most animals don't know they are going to die of old age. My dog is blissfully ignorant to this fact. However, us humans know we die of old age, so in order to motivate ourselves for survival, belief in an afterlife is important until the human race is strong enough to accept reality the way it is.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see why religion is appealing to most people, it also doesn't take a brain surgeon to see wh
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 11:30:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If certain principles are up for debate then who decides then?.
I already said most people inheritently have agood sense of morals, it's when they disagree who decides.

All you told me was the murderer should be kept out of society in away which was up for debate. So which way is it execution, jail, hospital or something else enirely?, who decides?, and why do they gets to decide?.

Also your answer only told me what you believed to be the most moral, what if people believe in punishment someone should recieve the maximum amount of pain.

You say over time basic principles will remain the same, well some people would say already basic principles have changed without the guidance of religion. Like some of our most fundmental right, I am sure you can guess the one I am speaking of.

To the remark you made about evolution. I can only answer this why do we care about the survival of the species. Lets say in the very early stages of man, why would the alpha male care about the concerns of others, or wether the species survives why not take what he wants and do what he likes, where did his compassion come from? and his need to have it?.

So religion being man made or not is both personal views we have good we agree on something. However you implied it like it was not a personal view but common knowledge that religion is man made, whenit was only a personal opinion.

We have religious faith because we know we are going to die, that seems like a pretty lame reason to put forward.

What more would a brain surgeon contribute than a dentist to this conversation, about theism and atheism. Thats just a silly remark.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 11:51:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 11:30:09 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
If certain principles are up for debate then who decides then?.

We do, as intelligent autonomous human beings. The fact that we are fallible gives us credence. Are you claiming that, not just that an ultimate moral source exists, but you can interpret it perfectly? Because if humans are fallible, morality to a practical level is relative.

I already said most people inheritently have agood sense of morals, it's when they disagree who decides.

And these disagreements cause problems. Unfortunately, these disagreements always exist. You have to be objective, and stop looking at your own viewpoint. When we make decisions regarding ethics or legislation, judicial, etc. we have to try and objectify ourselves, but we have to realise that we are using our own interpretation.

All you told me was the murderer should be kept out of society in away which was up for debate. So which way is it execution, jail, hospital or something else enirely?, who decides?, and why do they gets to decide?.

When you join into a society, we agree to the laws of the society, otherwise it becomes anarchy, objective morals or not. To create these laws of society, we need to make a decision of how to act ourselves. We create base values that we wish to promote: education, welfare, happiness, pleasure, justice... society has a list. We need to "heirarchise" and order these, and the order is where problems arise. The fact that we can disagree is testament to ourselves being able to think. Objective morals or not, we'd always have disagreement. We use law, discussion, and other such methods to explain our position and defend it, in the hopes we convince others. When people live under the system, people get happier, and so they stick with the specific moral system.

Also your answer only told me what you believed to be the most moral, what if people believe in punishment someone should recieve the maximum amount of pain.

Then they need to justify that by saying what their "aim" is. If it is to just produce pain, then I'd quite safely say that they'd be a minority (or I'd hope). However, the idea that there is an ideal way to run a society is strange: what's the aim? If it's to produce the most happiness, you have to justify it. We get to a stage where we have base values we cannot justify without circular or "it is because it is" logic.

To the remark you made about evolution. I can only answer this why do we care about the survival of the species. Lets say in the very early stages of man, why would the alpha male care about the concerns of others, or wether the species survives why not take what he wants and do what he likes, where did his compassion come from? and his need to have it?.

From an evolutionary standpoint, altruism is more beneficial in the long run. Have you heard of the Peace War Game? The most successful societies are the excessively violent ones, until a society of the "provokable nice guy" appears, which attacks violently when attacked, but otherwise is peaceful and helpful. They survive, and these societies promote specific values. Their survival is testament to the benefit of altruism,

From a cultural standpoint, we simply are empathetic, and value peace and happiness, so we don't go to war (apart from the war-mongering countries such as Sparta).

So religion being man made or not is both personal views we have good we agree on something. However you implied it like it was not a personal view but common knowledge that religion is man made, when it was only a personal opinion.

It's common knowledge that modern religion is influenced by man is what Rational means. Whether it is artificial entirely is debatable, but the modern religions are artificial in practice. Translated text, interpreted scripture, etc. etc.

We have religious faith because we know we are going to die, that seems like a pretty lame reason to put forward.

...and? That's the common window of religious faith: when you are scared.

(Note: I've cut out the parts where I would disagree with Rational-Thinker personally)
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 11:57:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 11:30:09 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
If certain principles are up for debate then who decides then?.
I already said most people inheritently have agood sense of morals, it's when they disagree who decides.

You make it sound like one person decides, we as a collective group decide (it's not a vote, it's a basic understanding which can be defended logically). These choices however, are based on objective facts about reality.


All you told me was the murderer should be kept out of society in away which was up for debate. So which way is it execution, jail, hospital or something else enirely?, who decides?, and why do they gets to decide?.

I said that keeping a killer out of society for not up for debate, but what happens after is. This doesn't mean all opinions are on the same level, some opinions are objectively better than others and rational minds should accept the better opinion.

For example, lets say I hand you a random card from a deck, and nobody knows what it is. Now lets say person A says "In my opinion, it's a two of diamonds" and person B says "In my opinion, it's not a two of diamonds". Person B's opinion is objectively better, because the chances are it is not a two of diamonds based on probability.

So in the debate about what we do with a killer, the better opinion, objectively, is that he should go to a hospital and be helped, or put somewhere where he can't hurt anyone. This of course, depends on how bad the mental condition is, and if it can be changed.


Also your answer only told me what you believed to be the most moral, what if people believe in punishment someone should recieve the maximum amount of pain.

Then they would be wrong, just like how if someone said 2 + 2 = 800 they would be wrong.


You say over time basic principles will remain the same, well some people would say already basic principles have changed without the guidance of religion. Like some of our most fundmental right, I am sure you can guess the one I am speaking of.

The basic principles never change, only the specifics and how reality is interpreted. When Atheists say morality changes over time, they mean, the specifics. You are once again creating a whole argument based off a straw man.


To the remark you made about evolution. I can only answer this why do we care about the survival of the species. Lets say in the very early stages of man, why would the alpha male care about the concerns of others, or wether the species survives why not take what he wants and do what he likes, where did his compassion come from? and his need to have it?.

If all the alpha males just took what they wanted and didn't care about others, they would have wiped themselves out. Caring about others, is also caring about yourself, and this is where morality comes from.

Only the smartest survive to pass on their genes, you cannot survive if you are immoral.

You can burn a drug dealer for a hundred dollars in the short run if he fronts you stuff. So in the short run you get:

1) One hundred dollars

2) An enemy

You could also sell the stuff, make a profit, keep it up, and make even more than a hundred dollar profit over time. So in the long run you get:

1) A log more than a hundred dollars
2) A partner/ friend.

There is an objectively right answer to which is the wiser choice, and ironically, it falls in line with what is most moral (not burning someone for their possessions).


So religion being man made or not is both personal views we have good we agree on something. However you implied it like it was not a personal view but common knowledge that religion is man made, whenit was only a personal opinion.

Wrong, religion is man made. This is not an opinion, this is a historical fact. The only thing up for debate, is whether this man made thing is inspired by God. The most logical position of course, is it isn't.


We have religious faith because we know we are going to die, that seems like a pretty lame reason to put forward.

This is a bare assertion fallacy, explain yourself. In reality, it's one of the many reasons why people believe in religion. It's not for people who are stupid, but people who are weak minded when it comes to the way reality really is.


What more would a brain surgeon contribute than a dentist to this conversation, about theism and atheism. Thats just a silly remark.

It's an expression, the fact you didn't know that, is what is silly.
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 1:24:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 11:57:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2012 11:30:09 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
If certain principles are up for debate then who decides then?.
I already said most people inheritently have agood sense of morals, it's when they disagree who decides.

You make it sound like one person decides, we as a collective group decide (it's not a vote, it's a basic understanding which can be defended logically). These choices however, are based on objective facts about reality.

No I do not make it sound like one person decides. The collective is not always right. What you say can be defended logically may be later found out to be wrong. For instance abortion wether you are for agaist it both sides will say logic and reason is on their sde.

All you told me was the murderer should be kept out of society in away which was up for debate. So which way is it execution, jail, hospital or something else enirely?, who decides?, and why do they gets to decide?.

I said that keeping a killer out of society for not up for debate, but what happens after is. This doesn't mean all opinions are on the same level, some opinions are objectively better than others and rational minds should accept the better opinion.

Exactly all morality is not equal so who's morality do we go by?. You obviously believe you are more rational than me and vice versa. My post was meaning the method you kept the person out of society was up for bebate.

For example, lets say I hand you a random card from a deck, and nobody knows what it is. Now lets say person A says "In my opinion, it's a two of diamonds" and person B says "In my opinion, it's not a two of diamonds". Person B's opinion is objectively better, because the chances are it is not a two of diamonds based on probability.

This analogy is completely random. How about the moral opinion of opposite sides of the death penaty. Please tell what moral opinion is correct in that scenario?.

So in the debate about what we do with a killer, the better opinion, objectively, is that he should go to a hospital and be helped, or put somewhere where he can't hurt anyone. This of course, depends on how bad the mental condition is, and if it can be changed.

Some people say this man is not insane. That he should be locked up, or executed. Your opinion to you seems more rational and logic to others it may not.

Also your answer only told me what you believed to be the most moral, what if people believe in punishment someone should recieve the maximum amount of pain.

Then they would be wrong, just like how if someone said 2 + 2 = 800 they would be wrong.

I think you are fighting my argument for me. So what you are saing is then there is a right and wrong, and morality is not just up for grabs, so then people do need direction in what to think. Relgion gives us that foundation.

You say over time basic principles will remain the same, well some people would say already basic principles have changed without the guidance of religion. Like some of our most fundmental right, I am sure you can guess the one I am speaking of.

The basic principles never change, only the specifics and how reality is interpreted. When Atheists say morality changes over time, they mean, the specifics. You are once again creating a whole argument based off a straw man.

No I am not. Some people would say basic fundmental moraltiy would be the right to life. Some people might say that basic fundment is no longer given to everyone.

Also this is very vague what basics remain the same, please give me some examples.

To the remark you made about evolution. I can only answer this why do we care about the survival of the species. Lets say in the very early stages of man, why would the alpha male care about the concerns of others, or wether the species survives why not take what he wants and do what he likes, where did his compassion come from? and his need to have it?.

If all the alpha males just took what they wanted and didn't care about others, they would have wiped themselves out. Caring about others, is also caring about yourself, and this is where morality comes from.

Why they have women to procreate with, and what would they care after there gone if the species survived or not. Where did that compassion orginate?

Only the smartest survive to pass on their genes, you cannot survive if you are immoral.

Yes, you can. Not only the smartest survive.

You can burn a drug dealer for a hundred dollars in the short run if he fronts you stuff. So in the short run you get:

1) One hundred dollars

2) An enemy

You could also sell the stuff, make a profit, keep it up, and make even more than a hundred dollar profit over time. So in the long run you get:

1) A log more than a hundred dollars
2) A partner/ friend.

There is an objectively right answer to which is the wiser choice, and ironically, it falls in line with what is most moral (not burning someone for their possessions).

This analogy is grounded in nothing. This is nothing about morality its about self interest. Some might say morality would be doing what is just even if it does not favour ones self.

So religion being man made or not is both personal views we have good we agree on something. However you implied it like it was not a personal view but common knowledge that religion is man made, whenit was only a personal opinion.

Wrong, religion is man made. This is not an opinion, this is a historical fact. The only thing up for debate, is whether this man made thing is inspired by God. The most logical position of course, is it isn't.

Christians believe Jesus was God made man. Jesuus said to Peter I give you my Church. The disciples of Jesus you could say was the first christian church giving to us by Jesus. However I suppose you are right because Jesus was a man and God.

We have religious faith because we know we are going to die, that seems like a pretty lame reason to put forward.

This is a bare assertion fallacy, explain yourself. In reality, it's one of the many reasons why people believe in religion. It's not for people who are stupid, but people who are weak minded when it comes to the way reality really is.

To me atheists are the ones who are weak minded when it comes to the way reality really is.

What more would a brain surgeon contribute than a dentist to this conversation, about theism and atheism. Thats just a silly remark.

It's an expression, the fact you didn't know that, is what is silly.

I heard the expression before I am just pointing out how silly it is.
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 1:48:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 11:51:09 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/29/2012 11:30:09 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
If certain principles are up for debate then who decides then?.

We do, as intelligent autonomous human beings. The fact that we are fallible gives us credence. Are you claiming that, not just that an ultimate moral source exists, but you can interpret it perfectly? Because if humans are fallible, morality to a practical level is relative.

Who is we?, society at large?, a selected few?, why should we lisetne to whoever we are?. I am saying religion gives us a foundation fo our morals. Otherwise morality is up for grabs.

I already said most people inheritently have agood sense of morals, it's when they disagree who decides.

And these disagreements cause problems. Unfortunately, these disagreements always exist. You have to be objective, and stop looking at your own viewpoint. When we make decisions regarding ethics or legislation, judicial, etc. we have to try and objectify ourselves, but we have to realise that we are using our own interpretation.

So what or who's point of view should I take my morality from?, if not my own.

All you told me was the murderer should be kept out of society in away which was up for debate. So which way is it execution, jail, hospital or something else enirely?, who decides?, and why do they gets to decide?.

When you join into a society, we agree to the laws of the society, otherwise it becomes anarchy, objective morals or not. To create these laws of society, we need to make a decision of how to act ourselves. We create base values that we wish to promote: education, welfare, happiness, pleasure, justice... society has a list. We need to "heirarchise" and order these, and the order is where problems arise. The fact that we can disagree is testament to ourselves being able to think. Objective morals or not, we'd always have disagreement. We use law, discussion, and other such methods to explain our position and defend it, in the hopes we convince others. When people live under the system, people get happier, and so they stick with the specific moral system.

How can you use law to discuss what moral values to put in place it is our moral values that give us laws.
Buddhism and hinduism have helped form and create the laws and society in asia. In the middle east islam and judiasm has helped create the form the laws and socity there. In europe and ameria christianity has helped form ad create laws and society there. The american constitution was creted by men heavly influenced by there christian faith.

Also your answer only told me what you believed to be the most moral, what if people believe in punishment someone should recieve the maximum amount of pain.

Then they need to justify that by saying what their "aim" is. If it is to just produce pain, then I'd quite safely say that they'd be a minority (or I'd hope). However, the idea that there is an ideal way to run a society is strange: what's the aim? If it's to produce the most happiness, you have to justify it. We get to a stage where we have base values we cannot justify without circular or "it is because it is" logic.

So our morality comes from the majority is that w you are saying?. If so the germans who persecuted the jews were acting morally, as a whole nation did not recognise the immorallity of it.

To the remark you made about evolution. I can only answer this why do we care about the survival of the species. Lets say in the very early stages of man, why would the alpha male care about the concerns of others, or wether the species survives why not take what he wants and do what he likes, where did his compassion come from? and his need to have it?.

From an evolutionary standpoint, altruism is more beneficial in the long run. Have you heard of the Peace War Game? The most successful societies are the excessively violent ones, until a society of the "provokable nice guy" appears, which attacks violently when attacked, but otherwise is peaceful and helpful. They survive, and these societies promote specific values. Their survival is testament to the benefit of altruism,

Why would you care about what happens in the long run. Where did the compassion orginate?.

From a cultural standpoint, we simply are empathetic, and value peace and happiness, so we don't go to war (apart from the war-mongering countries such as Sparta).

Yes, we do.

So religion being man made or not is both personal views we have good we agree on something. However you implied it like it was not a personal view but common knowledge that religion is man made, when it was only a personal opinion.

It's common knowledge that modern religion is influenced by man is what Rational means. Whether it is artificial entirely is debatable, but the modern religions are artificial in practice. Translated text, interpreted scripture, etc. etc.

Of course it is influenced by man religions are made up of people. Please elaborate on what you mean by artifical in practice.

We have religious faith because we know we are going to die, that seems like a pretty lame reason to put forward.

...and? That's the common window of religious faith: when you are scared.

If we are afraid of what happens to us after death where did this fer come from?. Did God implant this fear in us?, in the hope we would turn to him?.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 1:52:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 9:17:12 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2012 8:54:37 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
At 4/29/2012 8:32:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2012 8:05:24 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
Alright well lets say someone killed an innocent person. Some people think he should be put to death and others think he should be put in jail for life, and he thinks there is nothing wrong with what he done and he should be allowed to go about his business as usual. Who's moralty do we listen to?.

You don't listen to any of them. The killer most likely has something wrong with his brain, has some messed up biology, or has been effected by his environment and external stimulus in some way which ultimately led to that killing. It wouldn't be moral to put this man in jail under a traditional view of punishment, or to put him to death for what he has done.

What makes the most sense, is to hospitalize and to treat this person, all while removing him from society. If our species is to flourish, it's an objective fact that we can't have people killing innocent people, this is just absurd. However, they don't need to be thrown behind bars where they will just get into more trouble, and they don't need to lose their lives.

Morality can even be seen in the animal kingdom, self sacrifice for the pack and co-operation are tools needed for survival.

You have exactly made my point for me this is your opinion on what shoud be done based on you moral perception, however who says your moral perception is right. What gives you the authority to hospitalise a person, who in thier mind are morrally right in their action.Religion and theism give a foundation for our moral beliefs were as if everyone is left to their own perception without guidance then we have confusion.

My opinion isn't just an opinion, it's based on what we know about humans, and about basic goals. Once you have a goal, you have an objective standard. For example, if the goal was to have the most round 3D object, then a sphere would be objectively perfect. So if the goal is to survive collectively (which it objectively is, unless the benefits of life are not up to par with the benefits of death subjectively), then something has to be done about people who kill innocent people. This person has to be removed, now, how they get removed and what the end game is, is up for debate. There are still objectively better answers than others.

Also, religion is man made, I'm a man, what makes the people who made these religion's opinions more valid than mine according to you? Religion doesn't get you objective morality, you take that religion is based on the world of God by faith, not evidence.



For example many people believe that man who killed 78 people in Norway should be put to death, many believe he should be jailed indefinitely, and many believe he should be hospitalised, and to some he is a hero so who is right?.

The objective truth, is that he needs to be removed from society. How this is done is up for debate, but based on what we know about free will and neuroscience, hospitalizing him would be the most logical option. It's not like he chose the brain he had, so how could you logically "punish" him? He obviously, needs help, not punishment.



Also I never said you cannot have good morals without religion. Most people inheritently have a sense of what is right and wrong, and where did this come from?.

Evolution.


Religion however gives a basis and a direction for our values to follow. Without religion who has the authority to tell us our actions are right or wrong.

Religion is man made, I can write down rules better than the 10 commandments in 3 minutes, what makes the 10 commandments objectively better than what I could write down?

You just take by faith that it's the word of God, you have no evidence. So just claiming that you believe in religion, doesn't give you a true or solid basis for objective morality. It's not based on any science or any true understanding of the world.

I always enjoy reading your posts, RT ^_^
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 2:02:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 7:26:02 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
Where does the authrity for your moralities come from?

Lets say the whole world is atheist, then who or where do we take our instruction from?.

Who decides what is right or wrong?.

Who or what has the authority to tell us how and why we should act in a certain way?.

The three big ethical theories are all defensible in an atheistic universe: utilitarianism, deontology (Kantian or otherwise), and virtue ethics (Aristotelian or otherwise).

Im not saying these systems are correct, just that there are plenty of ethical systems that dont depend on a "who" that has some authority to set what is right or wrong. Maybe you ultimately find these systems unconvincing, but the issue is at least ambiguous enough that the lack of a moral authority shouldnt be considered an obvious flaw in an ethical system.
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 2:34:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 2:02:37 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/29/2012 7:26:02 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
Where does the authrity for your moralities come from?

Lets say the whole world is atheist, then who or where do we take our instruction from?.

Who decides what is right or wrong?.

Who or what has the authority to tell us how and why we should act in a certain way?.

The three big ethical theories are all defensible in an atheistic universe: utilitarianism, deontology (Kantian or otherwise), and virtue ethics (Aristotelian or otherwise).

Im not saying these systems are correct, just that there are plenty of ethical systems that dont depend on a "who" that has some authority to set what is right or wrong. Maybe you ultimately find these systems unconvincing, but the issue is at least ambiguous enough that the lack of a moral authority shouldnt be considered an obvious flaw in an ethical system.

Regardless of the system you still need a concesus in your ethical system. Who decides?, do you go by the majority?, or an elected few?. Aristotle describes virtue but someone may think they are virtuous when in fact they are not. Or some percieve someone to be virtuous and others percieve the same perso not. This is why I believe relign makes a good foundation to base our morals on and give us a sense of direction.
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 2:37:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am sorry if I came across aggressive on this thread it was not my intention. I am also sorry to rational-thinker for saying a remark was silly that is petty and I apologise.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 2:38:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 2:34:08 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
At 4/29/2012 2:02:37 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/29/2012 7:26:02 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
Where does the authrity for your moralities come from?

Lets say the whole world is atheist, then who or where do we take our instruction from?.

Who decides what is right or wrong?.

Who or what has the authority to tell us how and why we should act in a certain way?.

The three big ethical theories are all defensible in an atheistic universe: utilitarianism, deontology (Kantian or otherwise), and virtue ethics (Aristotelian or otherwise).

Im not saying these systems are correct, just that there are plenty of ethical systems that dont depend on a "who" that has some authority to set what is right or wrong. Maybe you ultimately find these systems unconvincing, but the issue is at least ambiguous enough that the lack of a moral authority shouldnt be considered an obvious flaw in an ethical system.

Regardless of the system you still need a concesus in your ethical system. Who decides?, do you go by the majority?, or an elected few?. Aristotle describes virtue but someone may think they are virtuous when in fact they are not. Or some percieve someone to be virtuous and others percieve the same perso not. This is why I believe relign makes a good foundation to base our morals on and give us a sense of direction.

"This is why I believe relign makes a good foundation to base our morals on and give us a sense of direction"

How do you explain the countless moral contradictions in The Bible? Do you believe God's word would have contradictions?

How can a moral foundation, based on contradictions, be a good foundation? That makes no sense to me.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 3:01:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 11:51:09 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/29/2012 11:30:09 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
If certain principles are up for debate then who decides then?.

We do, as intelligent autonomous human beings. The fact that we are fallible gives us credence. Are you claiming that, not just that an ultimate moral source exists, but you can interpret it perfectly? Because if humans are fallible, morality to a practical level is relative.

Who is we?, society at large?, a selected few?, why should we lisetne to whoever we are?. I am saying religion gives us a foundation fo our morals. Otherwise morality is up for grabs.

Equivocated the word "we" there. We means people. That doesn't mean we decide collectively, or we decide as individuals, as that was covered later. When I use "We", I refer to the "we" that has been used previously.

I already said most people inheritently have agood sense of morals, it's when they disagree who decides.

And these disagreements cause problems. Unfortunately, these disagreements always exist. You have to be objective, and stop looking at your own viewpoint. When we make decisions regarding ethics or legislation, judicial, etc. we have to try and objectify ourselves, but we have to realise that we are using our own interpretation.

So what or who's point of view should I take my morality from?, if not my own.

Your own sense of personal morality should work in accordance with the general law. If it does not, you need to weigh your personal morality against the instability of going against the consensus law (if it is a consensus law).

All you told me was the murderer should be kept out of society in away which was up for debate. So which way is it execution, jail, hospital or something else enirely?, who decides?, and why do they gets to decide?.

When you join into a society, we agree to the laws of the society, otherwise it becomes anarchy, objective morals or not. To create these laws of society, we need to make a decision of how to act ourselves. We create base values that we wish to promote: education, welfare, happiness, pleasure, justice... society has a list. We need to "heirarchise" and order these, and the order is where problems arise. The fact that we can disagree is testament to ourselves being able to think. Objective morals or not, we'd always have disagreement. We use law, discussion, and other such methods to explain our position and defend it, in the hopes we convince others. When people live under the system, people get happier, and so they stick with the specific moral system.

How can you use law to discuss what moral values to put in place it is our moral values that give us laws.

If you mean "where did morals come from", I'd say it takes hubris to claim to know, and that it's irrelevant in the debate we are in. Moral ontology is a debate of "ifs" and "buts" that gets nowhere, until we decide what morality "is".

If you mean "that's circular" (I think you meant this one), I mean that we create a code of conduct about how we behave in order to achieve personal ends. The moral contract allows us to act.

Buddhism and hinduism have helped form and create the laws and society in asia. In the middle east islam and judiasm has helped create the form the laws and socity there. In europe and ameria christianity has helped form ad create laws and society there. The american constitution was created by men heavliy influenced by their Christian faith.

Buddhism, just as Taoism (which had a larger impact) and Confucianism, have had a massive impact over the East because they are telling us how to organise society, and worked successfully. Religious vindication, of course, was (and is) more powerful, because of its nature of getting anyone to do anything. That doesn't make it any more right than Machiavelli.

Also your answer only told me what you believed to be the most moral, what if people believe in punishment someone should recieve the maximum amount of pain.

Then they need to justify that by saying what their "aim" is. If it is to just produce pain, then I'd quite safely say that they'd be a minority (or I'd hope). However, the idea that there is an ideal way to run a society is strange: what's the aim? If it's to produce the most happiness, you have to justify it. We get to a stage where we have base values we cannot justify without circular or "it is because it is" logic.

So our morality comes from the majority is that w you are saying?. If so the germans who persecuted the jews were acting morally, as a whole nation did not recognise the immorallity of it.

Law should come from the majority, but in practice comes from the most powerful. Many German officers should not have been prosecuted for "crimes against humanity" because they were acting on the threats to family and death by higher-ups. Yes, Law should come from the majority. Unfortunately, the majority is usually quiet. Political apathy caused Nazism.

Personal Morality should come from one's own reasoning. One should be humble when one reasons, knowing that they are not bastions of certainty, but need to trust themselves in their thought process.

To the remark you made about evolution. I can only answer this why do we care about the survival of the species. Lets say in the very early stages of man, why would the alpha male care about the concerns of others, or wether the species survives why not take what he wants and do what he likes, where did his compassion come from? and his need to have it?.

From an evolutionary standpoint, altruism is more beneficial in the long run. Have you heard of the Peace War Game? The most successful societies are the excessively violent ones, until a society of the "provokable nice guy" appears, which attacks violently when attacked, but otherwise is peaceful and helpful. They survive, and these societies promote specific values. Their survival is testament to the benefit of altruism,

Why would you care about what happens in the long run. Where did the compassion orginate?.

"Where did it originate" is a fruitless question. There's no way of determining it, though I'd say society and societal contract, as well as personal reasoning.

From a cultural standpoint, we simply are empathetic, and value peace and happiness, so we don't go to war (apart from the war-mongering countries such as Sparta).

Yes, we do.

Iraq, Afghanistan etc. isn't a war in the sense that Spartans went to war. Further, the majority of people do not want to go to war, so the point stands.

So religion being man made or not is both personal views we have good we agree on something. However you implied it like it was not a personal view but common knowledge that religion is man made, when it was only a personal opinion.


Of course it is influenced by man religions are made up of people. Please elaborate on what you mean by artifical in practice.

Religion's interpreted. Don't know what else I can say than that.

We have religious faith because we know we are going to die, that seems like a pretty lame reason to put forward.

...and? That's the common window of religious faith: when you are scared.

If we are afraid of what happens to us after death where did this fear come from?. Did God implant this fear in us?, in the hope we would turn to him?.

Abductive logic. Anything from Freud or modern psychology about Neuroses covers this. But fear and reward is the best motivator: we are survivalists at heart. Doesn't make surviving good. People flock to monarchs and dictators when scared. People flock to killing randomly when worried. People would set the world on fire when emotionally charged enough. Assuming God is just that: a
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 3:06:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 2:38:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2012 2:34:08 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
At 4/29/2012 2:02:37 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/29/2012 7:26:02 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
Where does the authrity for your moralities come from?

Lets say the whole world is atheist, then who or where do we take our instruction from?.

Who decides what is right or wrong?.

Who or what has the authority to tell us how and why we should act in a certain way?.

The three big ethical theories are all defensible in an atheistic universe: utilitarianism, deontology (Kantian or otherwise), and virtue ethics (Aristotelian or otherwise).

Im not saying these systems are correct, just that there are plenty of ethical systems that dont depend on a "who" that has some authority to set what is right or wrong. Maybe you ultimately find these systems unconvincing, but the issue is at least ambiguous enough that the lack of a moral authority shouldnt be considered an obvious flaw in an ethical system.

Regardless of the system you still need a concesus in your ethical system. Who decides?, do you go by the majority?, or an elected few?. Aristotle describes virtue but someone may think they are virtuous when in fact they are not. Or some percieve someone to be virtuous and others percieve the same perso not. This is why I believe relign makes a good foundation to base our morals on and give us a sense of direction.

"This is why I believe relign makes a good foundation to base our morals on and give us a sense of direction"

How do you explain the countless moral contradictions in The Bible? Do you believe God's word would have contradictions?

How can a moral foundation, based on contradictions, be a good foundation? That makes no sense to me.

I am not a creationist I do not believe all the bible should be taken literally. I belong to the Catholic Church who put together the bible. It is this Church that interprets the teachings in the bible. The bible contains the truth, there is parables and references to help you no matter what situation you are in. Some books in the bible are true some poetic and some to help us in life. I also do not believe in sola scripture the christian Church was about before the bible was.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 3:43:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 2:34:08 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

Regardless of the system you still need a concesus in your ethical system. Who decides?, do you go by the majority?, or an elected few?. Aristotle describes virtue but someone may think they are virtuous when in fact they are not. Or some percieve someone to be virtuous and others percieve the same perso not. This is why I believe relign makes a good foundation to base our morals on and give us a sense of direction.

Hmm I think you have a basic misunderstanding about ethics in general.

What you are describing is more of a practical issue of how do we deal with people disagreeing about what is or isnt ethical. This is an issue that is outside of whether an ethical system is right or wrong. For example, it could be true that generosity is a virtue and it could also be the case that no one in the world believed it to be true that generosity is a virtue. In fact, even your system in which morality is dictated by an authority is subject to the same problem. Many people disagree about what the Christian God demands is right or wrong- Christians disagree on contraception and divorce and on a whole host of points. This lack of consensus doesnt mean that the authority of God has not set a moral code, it just means that people do not know the code or misunderstand or whatever.

The point is that just because there isnt a consensus among the people who hold an ethical system doesnt mean the system is wrong.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 9:26:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 7:26:02 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
Where does the authrity for your moralities come from?

Lets say the whole world is atheist, then who or where do we take our instruction from?.

Who decides what is right or wrong?.

Who or what has the authority to tell us how and why we should act in a certain way?.

I'm convinced our moral obligation comes from under the commands issued by the ultimate Good himself. Every other moral theory concerning the ontological basis of value appears more arbitrary and less plausible than what's on offer from theism.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 3:45:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 1:48:48 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
At 4/29/2012 11:51:09 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/29/2012 11:30:09 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
If certain principles are up for debate then who decides then?.

We do, as intelligent autonomous human beings. The fact that we are fallible gives us credence. Are you claiming that, not just that an ultimate moral source exists, but you can interpret it perfectly? Because if humans are fallible, morality to a practical level is relative.

Who is we?, society at large?, a selected few?, why should we lisetne to whoever we are?. I am saying religion gives us a foundation fo our morals. Otherwise morality is up for grabs.

Maybe you mean God gives a foundation for the existence of morals, but religion doesn't. Religion can only claim things about God, God wants that, and if you don't your going to hell. People have burnt witches because that is what religion says God wants.

Notice God isn't out there giving out instructions, its people, usually men, who tell you they know what God wants, and you just gotta take their word for it. God equates abortion to murder........hey would I make this up ?


I already said most people inheritently have agood sense of morals, it's when they disagree who decides.

And these disagreements cause problems. Unfortunately, these disagreements always exist. You have to be objective, and stop looking at your own viewpoint. When we make decisions regarding ethics or legislation, judicial, etc. we have to try and objectify ourselves, but we have to realise that we are using our own interpretation.

Invoking God doesn't help, one person says God wants us to kill the homosexuals, one says no he doesn't want us to kill them but he does want us to stop gay marriage and another says God doesn't mind if gays get married.


So what or who's point of view should I take my morality from?, if not my own.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 1:33:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Firstly I think the origins of our morality has very much to do with this debate, if we are asking the question who decides what moral values to go by.

Secondly the 'we' part I still do not understand is this 'we' as in ourselves, 'we' as a majority, or 'we' as an elected few.

If a man believesis laws come from just another man, or men why would he think these values are any better than his own. However if a man believes the laws he goes by come from a supreme being wether he is right or not in this belief, he is more ready to go by these laws. Religion is better for society even if it's morals are off, because you have a foundation for a consenus on whta is right and wrong, were in a secular society it is only the opinion of one man over anothers.

Therefore I believe if everyone was atheist there would be complete anarchy.

I am lucky that I belong to THE CHURCH that holds the truth. In my opinion that is.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 1:39:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 1:33:09 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
Firstly I think the origins of our morality has very much to do with this debate, if we are asking the question who decides what moral values to go by.

Except that you're not stating what morality is to begin with.

Secondly the 'we' part I still do not understand is this 'we' as in ourselves, 'we' as a majority, or 'we' as an elected few.

we as in people. you used the pronoun yourself beforehand: There was no need to refer to the pronoun and re-establish it every time a pronoun is used.

If a man believes laws come from just another man, or men why would he think these values are any better than his own.

Agreed. Now let's destroy the establishment. politics is now completely redundant, and we have no reason to not kill each other and eat our own testicles.

Please, please think how this can be applied.

However if a man believes the laws he goes by come from a supreme being wether he is right or not in this belief, he is more ready to go by these laws. Religion is better for society even if it's morals are off, because you have a foundation for a consenus on whta is right and wrong, were in a secular society it is only the opinion of one man over anothers.

Except in a religious society you have many more disagreements. Sweden has a spread out political structure (thanks to its better political system allowing more views and parties to be seen) and a more active government.

Therefore I believe if everyone was atheist there would be complete anarchy.

Yes, like the anarchy of Sweden, you mean?

I am lucky that I belong to THE CHURCH that holds the truth. In my opinion that is.

Your church needs to fact check.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...