Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism can't adequately explain morality

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:33:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
P1: life has no objective meaning
P2: If life has no objective meaning, we may assign ourselves subjective meaning
P3: My subjective meaning can't be superior to another's subjective meaning given P1.
P4: Another person's subjective meaning to cause me harm is equally justified by my own meaning claiming that the person isn't.
P5: No authority exists to objectively justify either side
C: murder is not objectively wrong

But does this infringe on our objective purpose to populate?

P1: natural selection is a natural process resulting in the propagation of our species
P2: Propagation of our species is a natural outcome
C: Our objective purpose is to propagate because it is a natural outcome.

*swap the purpose of propagation with death*

P1: death is a natural process resulting in the termination of our species
P2: death of our species is a natural outcome
C: our objective purpose is to terminate because it is a natural outcome.

They are both equally valid. Therefore one can't choose an objective purpose over the other.

Why does our world act as if objective morality is inherently true if it actually doesn't exist?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:48:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Without morality, any forming society would destroy itself before it formed. Morals are standards of behavior agreed upon by the majority of the members of a society. This allows living in societies, rather than individually and independently, and it allows each member to benefit from the productivity of the other members.

Ben, how many of the things in your house could you provide for yourself if your mother left you to fend for yourself when you turned 16, and any attempt to co-exist with others (aside from the rut to provide for mating), resulted in instant squabbles, fights and lethal hatred?

Without standards of morality, beings cannot co-exist with any beneficial degree of harmony. Therefore, morality is an evolutionary adaptation to allow for the benefits of living in social groups.

And no society living today adheres to the barbaric standards of morality presented in the Christian Bible.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:55:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:33:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: life has no objective meaning
P2: If life has no objective meaning, we may assign ourselves subjective meaning
P3: My subjective meaning can't be superior to another's subjective meaning given P1.
P4: Another person's subjective meaning to cause me harm is equally justified by my own meaning claiming that the person isn't.
P5: No authority exists to objectively justify either side
C: murder is not objectively wrong

But does this infringe on our objective purpose to populate?

P1: natural selection is a natural process resulting in the propagation of our species
P2: Propagation of our species is a natural outcome
C: Our objective purpose is to propagate because it is a natural outcome.

*swap the purpose of propagation with death*

P1: death is a natural process resulting in the termination of our species
P2: death of our species is a natural outcome
C: our objective purpose is to terminate because it is a natural outcome.

They are both equally valid. Therefore one can't choose an objective purpose over the other.

Why does our world act as if objective morality is inherently true if it actually doesn't exist?

First off, you're conflating atheism with beliefs not inherent in it. Atheism is a descriptor referring to a lack of belief in a god or gods, no more, no less. Atheism has no world views, no rules, no churches or pastors. Atheism is simply a descriptive term for those who lack a belief in god. If you lack a belief in god, but believe that fairies and elves exist, you are an atheist. If you lack a belief in god, but believe that the world was brought into existence by a supernatural event, you are still an atheist. If you lack a belief in god, but believe the supernatural regularly occurs in this word, then you are still an atheist.

Secondly, you make unfounded leaps of logic in stating your conclusions. Neither of your conclusions follow from your arguments. Regardless of what an outcome is, that does not define a purpose. If I kill someone while trying to save them, the outcome of this is their death, but my purpose was to save them. Purpose and outcome are not linked, and that's just one fault in your extremely faulty logic. But even if we assumed these arguments held true, they would hold true regardless of whether a god existed or not, because life and death still exist in the world, in spite of a god existing or not.

Finally, you also misdefine the terms natural selection and death. Natural selection is the selection of genetic traits through propagation and lack of propagation. That is, propagation is a mechanic of natural selection, not the outcome, the outcome of natural selection is an organism being more suited for the environment in which is resides. And death is not the termination of any species, that is extinction. Death is the loss of function in an organism. Death occurs when an organism is not capable of sustaining its bodily functions.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 5:14:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:55:48 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:33:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: life has no objective meaning
P2: If life has no objective meaning, we may assign ourselves subjective meaning
P3: My subjective meaning can't be superior to another's subjective meaning given P1.
P4: Another person's subjective meaning to cause me harm is equally justified by my own meaning claiming that the person isn't.
P5: No authority exists to objectively justify either side
C: murder is not objectively wrong

But does this infringe on our objective purpose to populate?

P1: natural selection is a natural process resulting in the propagation of our species
P2: Propagation of our species is a natural outcome
C: Our objective purpose is to propagate because it is a natural outcome.

*swap the purpose of propagation with death*

P1: death is a natural process resulting in the termination of our species
P2: death of our species is a natural outcome
C: our objective purpose is to terminate because it is a natural outcome.

They are both equally valid. Therefore one can't choose an objective purpose over the other.

Why does our world act as if objective morality is inherently true if it actually doesn't exist?

First off, you're conflating atheism with beliefs not inherent in it. Atheism is a descriptor referring to a lack of belief in a god or gods, no more, no less. Atheism has no world views, no rules, no churches or pastors. Atheism is simply a descriptive term for those who lack a belief in god. If you lack a belief in god, but believe that fairies and elves exist, you are an atheist. If you lack a belief in god, but believe that the world was brought into existence by a supernatural event, you are still an atheist. If you lack a belief in god, but believe the supernatural regularly occurs in this word, then you are still an atheist.

Secondly, you make unfounded leaps of logic in stating your conclusions. Neither of your conclusions follow from your arguments. Regardless of what an outcome is, that does not define a purpose. If I kill someone while trying to save them, the outcome of this is their death, but my purpose was to save them. Purpose and outcome are not linked, and that's just one fault in your extremely faulty logic. But even if we assumed these arguments held true, they would hold true regardless of whether a god existed or not, because life and death still exist in the world, in spite of a god existing or not.


Finally, you also misdefine the terms natural selection and death. Natural selection is the selection of genetic traits through propagation and lack of propagation. That is, propagation is a mechanic of natural selection, not the outcome, the outcome of natural selection is an organism being more suited for the environment in which is resides. And death is not the termination of any species, that is extinction. Death is the loss of function in an organism. Death occurs when an organism is not capable of sustaining its bodily functions.

This is an exercise in pedanticism. I want to know:

(1) how objective morality can logically exist without God

And

(2) why morality is commonly referred to as necessary in order to propagate when propagation is inherently just as purposeless as every other natural process - including death.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 5:27:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:48:12 PM, Beastt wrote:
Without morality, any forming society would destroy itself before it formed. Morals are standards of behavior agreed upon by the majority of the members of a society. This allows living in societies, rather than individually and independently, and it allows each member to benefit from the productivity of the other members.

Ben, how many of the things in your house could you provide for yourself if your mother left you to fend for yourself when you turned 16, and any attempt to co-exist with others (aside from the rut to provide for mating), resulted in instant squabbles, fights and lethal hatred?

Without standards of morality, beings cannot co-exist with any beneficial degree of harmony. Therefore, morality is an evolutionary adaptation to allow for the benefits of living in social groups.

And no society living today adheres to the barbaric standards of morality presented in the Christian Bible.

What about examples of morality that don't benefit survival? Like dying for a moral cause that you strongly believe in. Or what about examples of immoral behavior that does benefit survival? Like cheating on your significant other resulting in pregnancy. Why is it moral to sacrifice time and effort on terminally ill patients just to make them happy? Most importantly, continued survival isn't an objective purpose.

Do you believe that objective morality exists?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 5:32:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 5:14:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:55:48 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:33:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: life has no objective meaning
P2: If life has no objective meaning, we may assign ourselves subjective meaning
P3: My subjective meaning can't be superior to another's subjective meaning given P1.
P4: Another person's subjective meaning to cause me harm is equally justified by my own meaning claiming that the person isn't.
P5: No authority exists to objectively justify either side
C: murder is not objectively wrong

But does this infringe on our objective purpose to populate?

P1: natural selection is a natural process resulting in the propagation of our species
P2: Propagation of our species is a natural outcome
C: Our objective purpose is to propagate because it is a natural outcome.

*swap the purpose of propagation with death*

P1: death is a natural process resulting in the termination of our species
P2: death of our species is a natural outcome
C: our objective purpose is to terminate because it is a natural outcome.

They are both equally valid. Therefore one can't choose an objective purpose over the other.

Why does our world act as if objective morality is inherently true if it actually doesn't exist?

First off, you're conflating atheism with beliefs not inherent in it. Atheism is a descriptor referring to a lack of belief in a god or gods, no more, no less. Atheism has no world views, no rules, no churches or pastors. Atheism is simply a descriptive term for those who lack a belief in god. If you lack a belief in god, but believe that fairies and elves exist, you are an atheist. If you lack a belief in god, but believe that the world was brought into existence by a supernatural event, you are still an atheist. If you lack a belief in god, but believe the supernatural regularly occurs in this word, then you are still an atheist.

Secondly, you make unfounded leaps of logic in stating your conclusions. Neither of your conclusions follow from your arguments. Regardless of what an outcome is, that does not define a purpose. If I kill someone while trying to save them, the outcome of this is their death, but my purpose was to save them. Purpose and outcome are not linked, and that's just one fault in your extremely faulty logic. But even if we assumed these arguments held true, they would hold true regardless of whether a god existed or not, because life and death still exist in the world, in spite of a god existing or not.


Finally, you also misdefine the terms natural selection and death. Natural selection is the selection of genetic traits through propagation and lack of propagation. That is, propagation is a mechanic of natural selection, not the outcome, the outcome of natural selection is an organism being more suited for the environment in which is resides. And death is not the termination of any species, that is extinction. Death is the loss of function in an organism. Death occurs when an organism is not capable of sustaining its bodily functions.

This is an exercise in pedanticism. I want to know:

(1) how objective morality can logically exist without God


Define objective, and I'll see what I can do.

And

(2) why morality is commonly referred to as necessary in order to propagate when propagation is inherently just as purposeless as every other natural process - including death.

Who have you ever seen say this?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 5:38:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 5:32:20 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:14:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:55:48 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:33:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: life has no objective meaning
P2: If life has no objective meaning, we may assign ourselves subjective meaning
P3: My subjective meaning can't be superior to another's subjective meaning given P1.
P4: Another person's subjective meaning to cause me harm is equally justified by my own meaning claiming that the person isn't.
P5: No authority exists to objectively justify either side
C: murder is not objectively wrong

But does this infringe on our objective purpose to populate?

P1: natural selection is a natural process resulting in the propagation of our species
P2: Propagation of our species is a natural outcome
C: Our objective purpose is to propagate because it is a natural outcome.

*swap the purpose of propagation with death*

P1: death is a natural process resulting in the termination of our species
P2: death of our species is a natural outcome
C: our objective purpose is to terminate because it is a natural outcome.

They are both equally valid. Therefore one can't choose an objective purpose over the other.

Why does our world act as if objective morality is inherently true if it actually doesn't exist?

First off, you're conflating atheism with beliefs not inherent in it. Atheism is a descriptor referring to a lack of belief in a god or gods, no more, no less. Atheism has no world views, no rules, no churches or pastors. Atheism is simply a descriptive term for those who lack a belief in god. If you lack a belief in god, but believe that fairies and elves exist, you are an atheist. If you lack a belief in god, but believe that the world was brought into existence by a supernatural event, you are still an atheist. If you lack a belief in god, but believe the supernatural regularly occurs in this word, then you are still an atheist.

Secondly, you make unfounded leaps of logic in stating your conclusions. Neither of your conclusions follow from your arguments. Regardless of what an outcome is, that does not define a purpose. If I kill someone while trying to save them, the outcome of this is their death, but my purpose was to save them. Purpose and outcome are not linked, and that's just one fault in your extremely faulty logic. But even if we assumed these arguments held true, they would hold true regardless of whether a god existed or not, because life and death still exist in the world, in spite of a god existing or not.


Finally, you also misdefine the terms natural selection and death. Natural selection is the selection of genetic traits through propagation and lack of propagation. That is, propagation is a mechanic of natural selection, not the outcome, the outcome of natural selection is an organism being more suited for the environment in which is resides. And death is not the termination of any species, that is extinction. Death is the loss of function in an organism. Death occurs when an organism is not capable of sustaining its bodily functions.

This is an exercise in pedanticism. I want to know:

(1) how objective morality can logically exist without God


Define objective, and I'll see what I can do.

Meaning factually true. Not subject to interpretation.

And

(2) why morality is commonly referred to as necessary in order to propagate when propagation is inherently just as purposeless as every other natural process - including death.

Who have you ever seen say this?

Someone in this very thread above you.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 5:45:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 5:38:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:32:20 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:14:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:55:48 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:33:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: life has no objective meaning
P2: If life has no objective meaning, we may assign ourselves subjective meaning
P3: My subjective meaning can't be superior to another's subjective meaning given P1.
P4: Another person's subjective meaning to cause me harm is equally justified by my own meaning claiming that the person isn't.
P5: No authority exists to objectively justify either side
C: murder is not objectively wrong

But does this infringe on our objective purpose to populate?

P1: natural selection is a natural process resulting in the propagation of our species
P2: Propagation of our species is a natural outcome
C: Our objective purpose is to propagate because it is a natural outcome.

*swap the purpose of propagation with death*

P1: death is a natural process resulting in the termination of our species
P2: death of our species is a natural outcome
C: our objective purpose is to terminate because it is a natural outcome.

They are both equally valid. Therefore one can't choose an objective purpose over the other.

Why does our world act as if objective morality is inherently true if it actually doesn't exist?

First off, you're conflating atheism with beliefs not inherent in it. Atheism is a descriptor referring to a lack of belief in a god or gods, no more, no less. Atheism has no world views, no rules, no churches or pastors. Atheism is simply a descriptive term for those who lack a belief in god. If you lack a belief in god, but believe that fairies and elves exist, you are an atheist. If you lack a belief in god, but believe that the world was brought into existence by a supernatural event, you are still an atheist. If you lack a belief in god, but believe the supernatural regularly occurs in this word, then you are still an atheist.

Secondly, you make unfounded leaps of logic in stating your conclusions. Neither of your conclusions follow from your arguments. Regardless of what an outcome is, that does not define a purpose. If I kill someone while trying to save them, the outcome of this is their death, but my purpose was to save them. Purpose and outcome are not linked, and that's just one fault in your extremely faulty logic. But even if we assumed these arguments held true, they would hold true regardless of whether a god existed or not, because life and death still exist in the world, in spite of a god existing or not.


Finally, you also misdefine the terms natural selection and death. Natural selection is the selection of genetic traits through propagation and lack of propagation. That is, propagation is a mechanic of natural selection, not the outcome, the outcome of natural selection is an organism being more suited for the environment in which is resides. And death is not the termination of any species, that is extinction. Death is the loss of function in an organism. Death occurs when an organism is not capable of sustaining its bodily functions.

This is an exercise in pedanticism. I want to know:

(1) how objective morality can logically exist without God


Define objective, and I'll see what I can do.

Meaning factually true. Not subject to interpretation.

How can morality be factually true? Also, isn't it redundant to say factually true?


And

(2) why morality is commonly referred to as necessary in order to propagate when propagation is inherently just as purposeless as every other natural process - including death.

Who have you ever seen say this?

Someone in this very thread above you.

The only person who posted in here other than us is Beastt, and he didn't say this. He said that morality as we see it today was selected for because it aided in propagation. This does not mean that it is necessary for propagation.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 5:50:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 5:45:41 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:38:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:32:20 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:14:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:55:48 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:33:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: life has no objective meaning
P2: If life has no objective meaning, we may assign ourselves subjective meaning
P3: My subjective meaning can't be superior to another's subjective meaning given P1.
P4: Another person's subjective meaning to cause me harm is equally justified by my own meaning claiming that the person isn't.
P5: No authority exists to objectively justify either side
C: murder is not objectively wrong

But does this infringe on our objective purpose to populate?

P1: natural selection is a natural process resulting in the propagation of our species
P2: Propagation of our species is a natural outcome
C: Our objective purpose is to propagate because it is a natural outcome.

*swap the purpose of propagation with death*

P1: death is a natural process resulting in the termination of our species
P2: death of our species is a natural outcome
C: our objective purpose is to terminate because it is a natural outcome.

They are both equally valid. Therefore one can't choose an objective purpose over the other.

Why does our world act as if objective morality is inherently true if it actually doesn't exist?

First off, you're conflating atheism with beliefs not inherent in it. Atheism is a descriptor referring to a lack of belief in a god or gods, no more, no less. Atheism has no world views, no rules, no churches or pastors. Atheism is simply a descriptive term for those who lack a belief in god. If you lack a belief in god, but believe that fairies and elves exist, you are an atheist. If you lack a belief in god, but believe that the world was brought into existence by a supernatural event, you are still an atheist. If you lack a belief in god, but believe the supernatural regularly occurs in this word, then you are still an atheist.

Secondly, you make unfounded leaps of logic in stating your conclusions. Neither of your conclusions follow from your arguments. Regardless of what an outcome is, that does not define a purpose. If I kill someone while trying to save them, the outcome of this is their death, but my purpose was to save them. Purpose and outcome are not linked, and that's just one fault in your extremely faulty logic. But even if we assumed these arguments held true, they would hold true regardless of whether a god existed or not, because life and death still exist in the world, in spite of a god existing or not.


Finally, you also misdefine the terms natural selection and death. Natural selection is the selection of genetic traits through propagation and lack of propagation. That is, propagation is a mechanic of natural selection, not the outcome, the outcome of natural selection is an organism being more suited for the environment in which is resides. And death is not the termination of any species, that is extinction. Death is the loss of function in an organism. Death occurs when an organism is not capable of sustaining its bodily functions.

This is an exercise in pedanticism. I want to know:

(1) how objective morality can logically exist without God


Define objective, and I'll see what I can do.

Meaning factually true. Not subject to interpretation.

How can morality be factually true? Also, isn't it redundant to say factually true?

So in other words, objective morality as I described it doesn't exist? s
Something can be subjectively true but not factually true.

And

(2) why morality is commonly referred to as necessary in order to propagate when propagation is inherently just as purposeless as every other natural process - including death.

Who have you ever seen say this?

Someone in this very thread above you.

The only person who posted in here other than us is Beastt, and he didn't say this. He said that morality as we see it today was selected for because it aided in propagation. This does not mean that it is necessary for propagation.

According to his examples it was necessary.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:03:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 5:50:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:45:41 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:38:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:32:20 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:14:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:55:48 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:33:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: life has no objective meaning
P2: If life has no objective meaning, we may assign ourselves subjective meaning
P3: My subjective meaning can't be superior to another's subjective meaning given P1.
P4: Another person's subjective meaning to cause me harm is equally justified by my own meaning claiming that the person isn't.
P5: No authority exists to objectively justify either side
C: murder is not objectively wrong

But does this infringe on our objective purpose to populate?

P1: natural selection is a natural process resulting in the propagation of our species
P2: Propagation of our species is a natural outcome
C: Our objective purpose is to propagate because it is a natural outcome.

*swap the purpose of propagation with death*

P1: death is a natural process resulting in the termination of our species
P2: death of our species is a natural outcome
C: our objective purpose is to terminate because it is a natural outcome.

They are both equally valid. Therefore one can't choose an objective purpose over the other.

Why does our world act as if objective morality is inherently true if it actually doesn't exist?

First off, you're conflating atheism with beliefs not inherent in it. Atheism is a descriptor referring to a lack of belief in a god or gods, no more, no less. Atheism has no world views, no rules, no churches or pastors. Atheism is simply a descriptive term for those who lack a belief in god. If you lack a belief in god, but believe that fairies and elves exist, you are an atheist. If you lack a belief in god, but believe that the world was brought into existence by a supernatural event, you are still an atheist. If you lack a belief in god, but believe the supernatural regularly occurs in this word, then you are still an atheist.

Secondly, you make unfounded leaps of logic in stating your conclusions. Neither of your conclusions follow from your arguments. Regardless of what an outcome is, that does not define a purpose. If I kill someone while trying to save them, the outcome of this is their death, but my purpose was to save them. Purpose and outcome are not linked, and that's just one fault in your extremely faulty logic. But even if we assumed these arguments held true, they would hold true regardless of whether a god existed or not, because life and death still exist in the world, in spite of a god existing or not.


Finally, you also misdefine the terms natural selection and death. Natural selection is the selection of genetic traits through propagation and lack of propagation. That is, propagation is a mechanic of natural selection, not the outcome, the outcome of natural selection is an organism being more suited for the environment in which is resides. And death is not the termination of any species, that is extinction. Death is the loss of function in an organism. Death occurs when an organism is not capable of sustaining its bodily functions.

This is an exercise in pedanticism. I want to know:

(1) how objective morality can logically exist without God


Define objective, and I'll see what I can do.

Meaning factually true. Not subject to interpretation.

How can morality be factually true? Also, isn't it redundant to say factually true?

So in other words, objective morality as I described it doesn't exist?

I still don't understand how you're describing it.

Something can be subjectively true but not factually true.

I still have no clue what you mean by factually true. Morality, to me, has no truth value.

Ducks are birds. That is a statement with truth value.

Don't kill other people. That, to me, has no truth value.

Also, as I said, saying factually true is redundant, so I don't know why you persist with using the term.

I believe objective morals can exist. But I don't know for a fact that they do. For instance, would morals created by evolutionary mechanism not fit your second criteria for objectivity? They are instinctual, so not open for interpretation. Though I wouldn't say they fit your first criteria, because I have no clue what you mean when you say morals are true, or factual. Morals do not make claims, so they have no truth value. Morals are not either right or wrong. Morals are standards, not statements. They have no truth value, and so cannot be called true. Just like how you can't call names true or false. Names are not claims. you can't say that my name is false, or true, because that makes no sense. Some things just don't have truth values.


And

(2) why morality is commonly referred to as necessary in order to propagate when propagation is inherently just as purposeless as every other natural process - including death.

Who have you ever seen say this?

Someone in this very thread above you.

The only person who posted in here other than us is Beastt, and he didn't say this. He said that morality as we see it today was selected for because it aided in propagation. This does not mean that it is necessary for propagation.

According to his examples it was necessary.

If that's what you think, then you didn't understand his example. He never said it was necessary for propagation, he said it necessary for a beneficial degree of harmony.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:16:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:48:12 PM, Beastt wrote:
Without morality, any forming society would destroy itself before it formed. Morals are standards of behavior agreed upon by the majority of the members of a society. This allows living in societies, rather than individually and independently, and it allows each member to benefit from the productivity of the other members.

Ben, how many of the things in your house could you provide for yourself if your mother left you to fend for yourself when you turned 16, and any attempt to co-exist with others (aside from the rut to provide for mating), resulted in instant squabbles, fights and lethal hatred?

Without standards of morality, beings cannot co-exist with any beneficial degree of harmony. Therefore, morality is an evolutionary adaptation to allow for the benefits of living in social groups.

And no society living today adheres to the barbaric standards of morality presented in the Christian Bible.

So essentially the standards of morality are just one argumentum ad populum?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:18:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:16:16 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:48:12 PM, Beastt wrote:
Without morality, any forming society would destroy itself before it formed. Morals are standards of behavior agreed upon by the majority of the members of a society. This allows living in societies, rather than individually and independently, and it allows each member to benefit from the productivity of the other members.

Ben, how many of the things in your house could you provide for yourself if your mother left you to fend for yourself when you turned 16, and any attempt to co-exist with others (aside from the rut to provide for mating), resulted in instant squabbles, fights and lethal hatred?

Without standards of morality, beings cannot co-exist with any beneficial degree of harmony. Therefore, morality is an evolutionary adaptation to allow for the benefits of living in social groups.

And no society living today adheres to the barbaric standards of morality presented in the Christian Bible.

So essentially the standards of morality are just one argumentum ad populum?

No. If they don't lead to greater social harmony, they are eventually filtered out, replaced, or revised. Society creates them, and society provides the testing ground for them.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:22:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:18:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:16:16 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:48:12 PM, Beastt wrote:
Without morality, any forming society would destroy itself before it formed. Morals are standards of behavior agreed upon by the majority of the members of a society. This allows living in societies, rather than individually and independently, and it allows each member to benefit from the productivity of the other members.

Ben, how many of the things in your house could you provide for yourself if your mother left you to fend for yourself when you turned 16, and any attempt to co-exist with others (aside from the rut to provide for mating), resulted in instant squabbles, fights and lethal hatred?

Without standards of morality, beings cannot co-exist with any beneficial degree of harmony. Therefore, morality is an evolutionary adaptation to allow for the benefits of living in social groups.

And no society living today adheres to the barbaric standards of morality presented in the Christian Bible.

So essentially the standards of morality are just one argumentum ad populum?

No. If they don't lead to greater social harmony, they are eventually filtered out, replaced, or revised. Society creates them, and society provides the testing ground for them.

So the standards of morality are an argument from consequence?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:29:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:22:57 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:18:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:16:16 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:48:12 PM, Beastt wrote:
Without morality, any forming society would destroy itself before it formed. Morals are standards of behavior agreed upon by the majority of the members of a society. This allows living in societies, rather than individually and independently, and it allows each member to benefit from the productivity of the other members.

Ben, how many of the things in your house could you provide for yourself if your mother left you to fend for yourself when you turned 16, and any attempt to co-exist with others (aside from the rut to provide for mating), resulted in instant squabbles, fights and lethal hatred?

Without standards of morality, beings cannot co-exist with any beneficial degree of harmony. Therefore, morality is an evolutionary adaptation to allow for the benefits of living in social groups.

And no society living today adheres to the barbaric standards of morality presented in the Christian Bible.

So essentially the standards of morality are just one argumentum ad populum?

No. If they don't lead to greater social harmony, they are eventually filtered out, replaced, or revised. Society creates them, and society provides the testing ground for them.

So the standards of morality are an argument from consequence?

They're not really an argument. They are the standards of behavior which promote harmony to the individuals living within a social setting. And over time, those standard can and will change. And they're not specific to homo sapiens. All social creatures abide by some form of moral standard.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:33:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:03:46 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:50:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:45:41 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:38:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:32:20 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:14:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:55:48 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:33:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: life has no objective meaning
P2: If life has no objective meaning, we may assign ourselves subjective meaning
P3: My subjective meaning can't be superior to another's subjective meaning given P1.
P4: Another person's subjective meaning to cause me harm is equally justified by my own meaning claiming that the person isn't.
P5: No authority exists to objectively justify either side
C: murder is not objectively wrong

But does this infringe on our objective purpose to populate?

P1: natural selection is a natural process resulting in the propagation of our species
P2: Propagation of our species is a natural outcome
C: Our objective purpose is to propagate because it is a natural outcome.

*swap the purpose of propagation with death*

P1: death is a natural process resulting in the termination of our species
P2: death of our species is a natural outcome
C: our objective purpose is to terminate because it is a natural outcome.

They are both equally valid. Therefore one can't choose an objective purpose over the other.

Why does our world act as if objective morality is inherently true if it actually doesn't exist?

First off, you're conflating atheism with beliefs not inherent in it. Atheism is a descriptor referring to a lack of belief in a god or gods, no more, no less. Atheism has no world views, no rules, no churches or pastors. Atheism is simply a descriptive term for those who lack a belief in god. If you lack a belief in god, but believe that fairies and elves exist, you are an atheist. If you lack a belief in god, but believe that the world was brought into existence by a supernatural event, you are still an atheist. If you lack a belief in god, but believe the supernatural regularly occurs in this word, then you are still an atheist.

Secondly, you make unfounded leaps of logic in stating your conclusions. Neither of your conclusions follow from your arguments. Regardless of what an outcome is, that does not define a purpose. If I kill someone while trying to save them, the outcome of this is their death, but my purpose was to save them. Purpose and outcome are not linked, and that's just one fault in your extremely faulty logic. But even if we assumed these arguments held true, they would hold true regardless of whether a god existed or not, because life and death still exist in the world, in spite of a god existing or not.


Finally, you also misdefine the terms natural selection and death. Natural selection is the selection of genetic traits through propagation and lack of propagation. That is, propagation is a mechanic of natural selection, not the outcome, the outcome of natural selection is an organism being more suited for the environment in which is resides. And death is not the termination of any species, that is extinction. Death is the loss of function in an organism. Death occurs when an organism is not capable of sustaining its bodily functions.

This is an exercise in pedanticism. I want to know:

(1) how objective morality can logically exist without God


Define objective, and I'll see what I can do.

Meaning factually true. Not subject to interpretation.

How can morality be factually true? Also, isn't it redundant to say factually true?

So in other words, objective morality as I described it doesn't exist?

I still don't understand how you're describing it.

Something can be subjectively true but not factually true.

I still have no clue what you mean by factually true. Morality, to me, has no truth value.

Ducks are birds. That is a statement with truth value.

Don't kill other people. That, to me, has no truth value.

Also, as I said, saying factually true is redundant, so I don't know why you persist with using the term.

Factually true means it has a set value that can't change. It isn't open for interpretation.

Subjectively true means it doesn't have a set value and that the observed value may be true according to you but not to someone else. It is subject to interpretation.

Example:
it is factually true this this movie is 1hr 47 minutes long.
It is subjectively true that this movie is sad. It is true that to me, it is sad, but it may or may not be sad for others.

Do you believe that the following statement is factually or subjectively true: "raping someone for pleasure is wrong"

I believe objective morals can exist. But I don't know for a fact that they do. For instance, would morals created by evolutionary mechanism not fit your second criteria for objectivity? They are instinctual, so not open for interpretation. Though I wouldn't say they fit your first criteria, because I have no clue what you mean when you say morals are true, or factual. Morals do not make claims, so they have no truth value. Morals are not either right or wrong. Morals are standards, not statements. They have no truth value, and so cannot be called true. Just like how you can't call names true or false. Names are not claims. you can't say that my name is false, or true, because that makes no sense. Some things just don't have truth values.

If propagation is inherently purposeless, why does an inherent purpose exist to continue a purposeless process? Morality entails purpose-driven actions unlike processes found in nature. And what about moral choices that contradict survival and immoral choices that enhance survival?


And

(2) why morality is commonly referred to as necessary in order to propagate when propagation is inherently just as purposeless as every other natural process - including death.

Who have you ever seen say this?

Someone in this very thread above you.

The only person who posted in here other than us is Beastt, and he didn't say this. He said that morality as we see it today was selected for because it aided in propagation. This does not mean that it is necessary for propagation.

According to his examples it was necessary.

If that's what you think, then you didn't understand his example. He never said it was necessary for propagation, he said it necessary for a beneficial degree of harmony.

Well there's two way to look at it: necessary for the act of propagation or necessary for sustained propagation. He was saying that if we didn't have morals, we wouldn't be able to sustain propagation of our species. That is the same thing as saying that morals are necessary for propagation of our species if he's referring to sustained propagation. In no way did he indicate that morals aided rather than necessitated beneficial co-existence as a prerequisite for sustained propagation.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:59:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So in other words, objective morality as I described it doesn't exist?

I still don't understand how you're describing it.

Something can be subjectively true but not factually true.

I still have no clue what you mean by factually true. Morality, to me, has no truth value.

Ducks are birds. That is a statement with truth value.

Don't kill other people. That, to me, has no truth value.

Also, as I said, saying factually true is redundant, so I don't know why you persist with using the term.

Factually true means it has a set value that can't change. It isn't open for interpretation.

Subjectively true means it doesn't have a set value and that the observed value may be true according to you but not to someone else. It is subject to interpretation.

Example:
it is factually true this this movie is 1hr 47 minutes long.
It is subjectively true that this movie is sad. It is true that to me, it is sad, but it may or may not be sad for others.

Do you believe that the following statement is factually or subjectively true: "raping someone for pleasure is wrong"


That's an interesting moral question. I think that question comes down to where I get my morals from, which I would answer that I don't know. My best guess would be that they are a genetic trait, developed of many many years through natural selection. Which, I believe, by your definition, is half objective, and half subjective. Instinctual morals are not open to interpretation, but are also subject to change. So, the answer boils down to both.

I believe objective morals can exist. But I don't know for a fact that they do. For instance, would morals created by evolutionary mechanism not fit your second criteria for objectivity? They are instinctual, so not open for interpretation. Though I wouldn't say they fit your first criteria, because I have no clue what you mean when you say morals are true, or factual. Morals do not make claims, so they have no truth value. Morals are not either right or wrong. Morals are standards, not statements. They have no truth value, and so cannot be called true. Just like how you can't call names true or false. Names are not claims. you can't say that my name is false, or true, because that makes no sense. Some things just don't have truth values.

If propagation is inherently purposeless, why does an inherent purpose exist to continue a purposeless process?

What? Why does is matter if propagation has purpose or not? How does that in any way effect morals?

Morality entails purpose-driven actions unlike processes found in nature.

No it doesn't. Morality entails standards of right and wrong.

And what about moral choices that contradict survival and immoral choices that enhance survival?

Examples? I can't answer this unless you tell me specifically what you're talking about, otherwise I'd just be making strawmen.


According to his examples it was necessary.

If that's what you think, then you didn't understand his example. He never said it was necessary for propagation, he said it necessary for a beneficial degree of harmony.

Well there's two way to look at it: necessary for the act of propagation or necessary for sustained propagation. He was saying that if we didn't have morals, we wouldn't be able to sustain propagation of our species.

No, he didn't. If you disagree, I want a direct quote, because I've read his post 3 times now trying to figure out how you got this idea, but I still have no clue.

That is the same thing as saying that morals are necessary for propagation of our species if he's referring to sustained propagation. In no way did he indicate that morals aided rather than necessitated beneficial co-existence as a prerequisite for sustained propagation.

"Without standards of morality, beings cannot co-exist with any beneficial degree of harmony. Therefore, morality is an evolutionary adaptation to allow for the benefits of living in social groups." - Beastt
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
QandA
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:22:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hope you don't mind me cutting in here guys but I recently read an article that proposed a theory for where we get our morals and it's actually very interesting and simple. The short answer is "emotions". Think about it. It is our emotions (which are inherently embedded in our brains) that cause us to do most actions, whether they be moral or immoral and this can be linked to evolution too. For example, a Neanderthal man witnesses a child drowning but of course doesn't do anything about it because he is unawarewhat is going on. Nowadays on the contrary, if we saw a kid drowning we would jump in a rescue them. Why? Because of our emotions which portray fear of this child drowning and the determination to save their life. The difference between the two circumstances is that now we have learned the consequences of such instances through our experiences as a race which make us fear death and desire to rescue this life. As humans have evolved so too have emotions and that is why we have a basis for morality. We do not kill anyone we don't like because our emotions would rid us with guilt. We do not show hatred to everyone because we understand their emotions too. In a nutshell emotions go hand in hand with morality as they dictate what deeds we carry out. It's an interesting theory.
QandA
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:25:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 7:22:38 PM, QandA wrote:
Hope you don't mind me cutting in here guys but I recently read an article that proposed a theory for where we get our morals and it's actually very interesting and simple. The short answer is "emotions". Think about it. It is our emotions (which are inherently embedded in our brains) that cause us to do most actions, whether they be moral or immoral and this can be linked to evolution too. For example, a Neanderthal man witnesses a child drowning but of course doesn't do anything about it because he is unawarewhat is going on. Nowadays on the contrary, if we saw a kid drowning we would jump in a rescue them. Why? Because of our emotions which portray fear of this child drowning and the determination to save their life. The difference between the two circumstances is that now we have learned the consequences of such instances through our experiences as a race which make us fear death and desire to rescue this life. As humans have evolved so too have emotions and that is why we have a basis for morality. We do not kill anyone we don't like because our emotions would rid us with guilt. We do not show hatred to everyone because we understand their emotions too. In a nutshell emotions go hand in hand with morality as they dictate what deeds we carry out. It's an interesting theory.

It seems to me you're just talking about empathy.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
QandA
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:30:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 7:25:25 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 7:22:38 PM, QandA wrote:
Hope you don't mind me cutting in here guys but I recently read an article that proposed a theory for where we get our morals and it's actually very interesting and simple. The short answer is "emotions". Think about it. It is our emotions (which are inherently embedded in our brains) that cause us to do most actions, whether they be moral or immoral and this can be linked to evolution too. For example, a Neanderthal man witnesses a child drowning but of course doesn't do anything about it because he is unawarewhat is going on. Nowadays on the contrary, if we saw a kid drowning we would jump in a rescue them. Why? Because of our emotions which portray fear of this child drowning and the determination to save their life. The difference between the two circumstances is that now we have learned the consequences of such instances through our experiences as a race which make us fear death and desire to rescue this life. As humans have evolved so too have emotions and that is why we have a basis for morality. We do not kill anyone we don't like because our emotions would rid us with guilt. We do not show hatred to everyone because we underst and their emotions too. In a nutshell emotions go hand in hand with morality as they dictate what deeds we carry out. It's an interesting theory.

It seems to me you're just talking about empathy.

Ah but it is emotions such as empathy which makes us commit moral deeds. For example there would be no charities if people did not emphasize with others.
QandA
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:37:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 7:30:59 PM, QandA wrote:
At 7/23/2014 7:25:25 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 7:22:38 PM, QandA wrote:
Hope you don't mind me cutting in here guys but I recently read an article that proposed a theory for where we get our morals and it's actually very interesting and simple. The short answer is "emotions". Think about it. It is our emotions (which are inherently embedded in our brains) that cause us to do most actions, whether they be moral or immoral and this can be linked to evolution too. For example, a Neanderthal man witnesses a child drowning but of course doesn't do anything about it because he is unawarewhat is going on. Nowadays on the contrary, if we saw a kid drowning we would jump in a rescue them. Why? Because of our emotions which portray fear of this child drowning and the determination to save their life. The difference between the two circumstances is that now we have learned the consequences of such instances through our experiences as a race which make us fear death and desire to rescue this life. As humans have evolved so too have emotions and that is why we have a basis for morality. We do not kill anyone we don't like because our emotions would rid us with guilt. We do not show hatred to everyone because we underst and their emotions too. In a nutshell emotions go hand in hand with morality as they dictate what deeds we carry out. It's an interesting theory.

It seems to me you're just talking about empathy.

Ah but it is emotions such as empathy which makes us commit moral deeds. For example there would be no charities if people did not emphasize with others.

I see no reason to believe that. Charities could also exist because people who were in those situations which require charity decided to create one for themselves. Charities could exist for tax purposes. Charities could exist for the purpose of looking like you're a good person for being selfless. There are many reasons a charity could exist other than feeling empathy for those which the charity helps. Also, i wouldn't say empathy is emotion. Rather, it is a reason for feeling emotions.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:46:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:29:13 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:22:57 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:18:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:16:16 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:48:12 PM, Beastt wrote:
Without morality, any forming society would destroy itself before it formed. Morals are standards of behavior agreed upon by the majority of the members of a society. This allows living in societies, rather than individually and independently, and it allows each member to benefit from the productivity of the other members.

Ben, how many of the things in your house could you provide for yourself if your mother left you to fend for yourself when you turned 16, and any attempt to co-exist with others (aside from the rut to provide for mating), resulted in instant squabbles, fights and lethal hatred?

Without standards of morality, beings cannot co-exist with any beneficial degree of harmony. Therefore, morality is an evolutionary adaptation to allow for the benefits of living in social groups.

And no society living today adheres to the barbaric standards of morality presented in the Christian Bible.

So essentially the standards of morality are just one argumentum ad populum?

No. If they don't lead to greater social harmony, they are eventually filtered out, replaced, or revised. Society creates them, and society provides the testing ground for them.

So the standards of morality are an argument from consequence?

They're not really an argument. They are the standards of behavior which promote harmony to the individuals living within a social setting. And over time, those standard can and will change. And they're not specific to homo sapiens. All social creatures abide by some form of moral standard.

So you equivocate harmony in a society with morality?
QandA
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:47:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 7:37:40 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 7:30:59 PM, QandA wrote:
At 7/23/2014 7:25:25 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 7:22:38 PM, QandA wrote:
Hope you don't mind me cutting in here guys but I recently read an article that proposed a theory for where we get our morals and it's actually very interesting and simple. The short answer is "emotions". Think about it. It is our emotions (which are inherently embedded in our brains) that cause us to do most actions, whether they be moral or immoral and this can be linked to evolution too. For example, a Neanderthal man witnesses a child drowning but of course doesn't do anything about it because he is unawarewhat is going on. Nowadays on the contrary, if we saw a kid drowning we would jump in a rescue them. Why? Because of our emotions which portray fear of this child drowning and the determination to save their life. The difference between the two circumstances is that now we have learned the consequences of such instances through our experiences as a race which make us fear death and desire to rescue this life. As humans have evolved so too have emotions and that is why we have a basis for morality. We do not kill anyone we don't like because our emotions would rid us with guilt. We do not show hatred to everyone because we underst and their emotions too. In a nutshell emotions go hand in hand with morality as they dictate what deeds we carry out. It's an interesting theory.

It seems to me you're just talking about empathy.

Ah but it is emotions such as empathy which makes us commit moral deeds. For example there would be no charities if people did not emphasize with others.

I see no reason to believe that. Charities could also exist because people who were in those situations which require charity decided to create one for themselves. Charities could exist for tax purposes. Charities could exist for the purpose of looking like you're a good person for being selfless. There are many reasons a charity could exist other than feeling empathy for those which the charity helps. Also, i wouldn't say empathy is emotion. Rather, it is a reason for feeling emotions.

Well the charity thing was only a hypothetical example of the theory in practice but if we go your way then I also argue that no matter how a charity is set up there must be some kind of emotional motivation behind it whether it be for a moral or immoral cause, greed or empathy. And believe me we could not feel empathy without emotions. But even back to the example of a child being saved from drowning. That's a moral act fueled by emotional determination and desire is it not?
QandA
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:51:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 7:47:51 PM, QandA wrote:
At 7/23/2014 7:37:40 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 7:30:59 PM, QandA wrote:
At 7/23/2014 7:25:25 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 7:22:38 PM, QandA wrote:
Hope you don't mind me cutting in here guys but I recently read an article that proposed a theory for where we get our morals and it's actually very interesting and simple. The short answer is "emotions". Think about it. It is our emotions (which are inherently embedded in our brains) that cause us to do most actions, whether they be moral or immoral and this can be linked to evolution too. For example, a Neanderthal man witnesses a child drowning but of course doesn't do anything about it because he is unawarewhat is going on. Nowadays on the contrary, if we saw a kid drowning we would jump in a rescue them. Why? Because of our emotions which portray fear of this child drowning and the determination to save their life. The difference between the two circumstances is that now we have learned the consequences of such instances through our experiences as a race which make us fear death and desire to rescue this life. As humans have evolved so too have emotions and that is why we have a basis for morality. We do not kill anyone we don't like because our emotions would rid us with guilt. We do not show hatred to everyone because we underst and their emotions too. In a nutshell emotions go hand in hand with morality as they dictate what deeds we carry out. It's an interesting theory.

It seems to me you're just talking about empathy.

Ah but it is emotions such as empathy which makes us commit moral deeds. For example there would be no charities if people did not emphasize with others.

I see no reason to believe that. Charities could also exist because people who were in those situations which require charity decided to create one for themselves. Charities could exist for tax purposes. Charities could exist for the purpose of looking like you're a good person for being selfless. There are many reasons a charity could exist other than feeling empathy for those which the charity helps. Also, i wouldn't say empathy is emotion. Rather, it is a reason for feeling emotions.

Well the charity thing was only a hypothetical example of the theory in practice but if we go your way then I also argue that no matter how a charity is set up there must be some kind of emotional motivation behind it whether it be for a moral or immoral cause, greed or empathy. And believe me we could not feel empathy without emotions. But even back to the example of a child being saved from drowning. That's a moral act fueled by emotional determination and desire is it not?

Depends on the person, and what you define as a moral act. The person could be saving the child just so they could then torture and kill them for their own pleasure. The saving is probably still filled with determination and desire, but I doubt you would define that as a moral act. You need to stop being so absolute with intentions. Things aren't black and white, there are most definitely shades of grey.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:53:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:33:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: life has no objective meaning
P2: If life has no objective meaning, we may assign ourselves subjective meaning
P3: My subjective meaning can't be superior to another's subjective meaning given P1.
P4: Another person's subjective meaning to cause me harm is equally justified by my own meaning claiming that the person isn't.
P5: No authority exists to objectively justify either side
C: murder is not objectively wrong

But does this infringe on our objective purpose to populate?

P1: natural selection is a natural process resulting in the propagation of our species
P2: Propagation of our species is a natural outcome
C: Our objective purpose is to propagate because it is a natural outcome.

*swap the purpose of propagation with death*

P1: death is a natural process resulting in the termination of our species
P2: death of our species is a natural outcome
C: our objective purpose is to terminate because it is a natural outcome.

They are both equally valid. Therefore one can't choose an objective purpose over the other.

Why does our world act as if objective morality is inherently true if it actually doesn't exist?

The problem with atheism is they can talk all night about morality but when its truthness is changing my the minute...
Never fart near dog
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 8:04:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 7:46:27 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:29:13 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:22:57 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:18:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:16:16 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:48:12 PM, Beastt wrote:
Without morality, any forming society would destroy itself before it formed. Morals are standards of behavior agreed upon by the majority of the members of a society. This allows living in societies, rather than individually and independently, and it allows each member to benefit from the productivity of the other members.

Ben, how many of the things in your house could you provide for yourself if your mother left you to fend for yourself when you turned 16, and any attempt to co-exist with others (aside from the rut to provide for mating), resulted in instant squabbles, fights and lethal hatred?

Without standards of morality, beings cannot co-exist with any beneficial degree of harmony. Therefore, morality is an evolutionary adaptation to allow for the benefits of living in social groups.

And no society living today adheres to the barbaric standards of morality presented in the Christian Bible.

So essentially the standards of morality are just one argumentum ad populum?

No. If they don't lead to greater social harmony, they are eventually filtered out, replaced, or revised. Society creates them, and society provides the testing ground for them.

So the standards of morality are an argument from consequence?

They're not really an argument. They are the standards of behavior which promote harmony to the individuals living within a social setting. And over time, those standard can and will change. And they're not specific to homo sapiens. All social creatures abide by some form of moral standard.

So you equivocate harmony in a society with morality?

Why do you insist on trying to take my words, change them and then insert them back into my mouth? That's not what I said because that's not what I intend.

I'm saying that standards of morality are behaviors which exist to promote harmony. That doesn't mean harmony will exist as there are many different causes for disharmony. However, members of a society who attempt to promote harmony within their society, tend to instill the motivation to work together to rectify other matters which promote disharmony.

Put simply; under the more common standards of morality, Robert and Ted will get along better as neighbors if Ted doesn't take Robert's car and sell it, than they will if he does. Respect for the properties of others is a relatively common human moral standard, but isn't necessarily common to every system of human morality.

The U.S. civil war demonstrated the failure of slavery as a moral standard. Rather than keep society together, it threatened to tear society apart, and did so to a significant degree.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
QandA
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 8:07:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 7:51:43 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 7:47:51 PM, QandA wrote:
At 7/23/2014 7:37:40 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 7:30:59 PM, QandA wrote:
At 7/23/2014 7:25:25 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 7:22:38 PM, QandA wrote:
Hope you don't mind me cutting in here guys but I recently read an article that proposed a theory for where we get our morals and it's actually very interesting and simple. The short answer is "emotions". Think about it. It is our emotions (which are inherently embedded in our brains) that cause us to do most actions, whether they be moral or immoral and this can be linked to evolution too. For example, a Neanderthal man witnesses a child drowning but of course doesn't do anything about it because he is unawarewhat is going on. Nowadays on the contrary, if we saw a kid drowning we would jump in a rescue them. Why? Because of our emotions which portray fear of this child drowning and the determination to save their life. The difference between the two circumstances is that now we have learned the consequences of such instances through our experiences as a race which make us fear death and desire to rescue this life. As humans have evolved so too have emotions and that is why we have a basis for morality. We do not kill anyone we don't like because our emotions would rid us with guilt. We do not show hatred to everyone because we underst and their emotions too. In a nutshell emotions go hand in hand with morality as they dictate what deeds we carry out. It's an interesting theory.

It seems to me you're just talking about empathy.

Ah but it is emotions such as empathy which makes us commit moral deeds. For example there would be no charities if people did not emphasize with others.

I see no reason to believe that. Charities could also exist because people who were in those situations which require charity decided to create one for themselves. Charities could exist for tax purposes. Charities could exist for the purpose of looking like you're a good person for being selfless. There are many reasons a charity could exist other than feeling empathy for those which the charity helps. Also, i wouldn't say empathy is emotion. Rather, it is a reason for feeling emotions.

Well the charity thing was only a hypothetical example of the theory in practice but if we go your way then I also argue that no matter how a charity is set up there must be some kind of emotional motivation behind it whether it be for a moral or immoral cause, greed or empathy. And believe me we could not feel empathy without emotions. But even back to the example of a child being saved from drowning. That's a moral act fueled by emotional determination and desire is it not?

Depends on the person, and what you define as a moral act. The person could be saving the child just so they could then torture and kill them for their own pleasure. The saving is probably still filled with determination and desire, but I doubt you would define that as a moral act. You need to stop being so absolute with intentions. Things aren't black and white, there are most definitely shades of grey.

Yes I know there are many "what ifs" to everything however it cannot be denied that an act such as saving a child from drowning, in theory and in it's most basic form without "what ifs" is a moral act spurred on by intense emotions. It's actually irrelevant mentioning all the "what ifs" as such occurrences which Ijust mentioned undoubtedly do occur on a daily basis and are a prime example of morality stemming from emotions. If you want to talk about immoral acts then the theory applies there too. As you say desire and determination to save a child could be for immoral intentions but that is still emotions resulting in an act on the morality scale if you will (assuming the forum also lumps immoral acts in with the morality scale too).
QandA
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 8:13:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 8:04:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
Why do you insist on trying to take my words, change them and then insert them back into my mouth? That's not what I said because that's not what I intend.

My apologies, don't mean to.

I'm saying that standards of morality are behaviors which exist to promote harmony. That doesn't mean harmony will exist as there are many different causes for disharmony. However, members of a society who attempt to promote harmony within their society, tend to instill the motivation to work together to rectify other matters which promote disharmony.
Put simply; under the more common standards of morality, Robert and Ted will get along better as neighbors if Ted doesn't take Robert's car and sell it, than they will if he does. Respect for the properties of others is a relatively common human moral standard, but isn't necessarily common to every system of human morality.

so if it makes people get a long better that means it is moral? I'm having trouble finding a concrete answer in any of your post.

The U.S. civil war demonstrated the failure of slavery as a moral standard. Rather than keep society together, it threatened to tear society apart, and did so to a significant degree.

What about before the civil war? Was it always immoral and we just had not known or did it become immoral at some point in time?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 10:52:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 8:13:56 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/23/2014 8:04:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
Why do you insist on trying to take my words, change them and then insert them back into my mouth? That's not what I said because that's not what I intend.

My apologies, don't mean to.

I'm saying that standards of morality are behaviors which exist to promote harmony. That doesn't mean harmony will exist as there are many different causes for disharmony. However, members of a society who attempt to promote harmony within their society, tend to instill the motivation to work together to rectify other matters which promote disharmony.
Put simply; under the more common standards of morality, Robert and Ted will get along better as neighbors if Ted doesn't take Robert's car and sell it, than they will if he does. Respect for the properties of others is a relatively common human moral standard, but isn't necessarily common to every system of human morality.

so if it makes people get a long better that means it is moral? I'm having trouble finding a concrete answer in any of your post.
Sometimes the answers aren't quite as simple as your questions would suggest. The answer is yes, but it's important to keep in mind that it can't just be for a few members of society. It needs to contribute to people getting along better across a wide majority of the members of any given society.

The U.S. civil war demonstrated the failure of slavery as a moral standard. Rather than keep society together, it threatened to tear society apart, and did so to a significant degree.

What about before the civil war? Was it always immoral and we just had not known or did it become immoral at some point in time?
Your question assumes an absolute morality. Morality isn't absolute, it's subjective. As societies grow, mature, and endure different conditions, their standards of morality will change. That doesn't mean that it was ever okay to claim another person as your personal property, but in some cultures that was accepted even by the majority of the slaves. It can be difficult not to confuse one's personal ideas of morality, with working morality.

For example, I consider it highly immoral to mistreat animals, and that includes eating them. However, were I and several like-minded people to attempt to force people into our view, our actions would be immoral. Then you have to decide whether you would rather disrupt the harmony of your society, or endure the empathy of watching other creatures suffer needlessly. So while I realize that society is acting immorally toward animals, society doesn't consider those animals to be part of society. Attempting to force them to recognize that unnecessary killing for the sake of a corpse on their plate, is unlikely to prove beneficial for the animals (because there will be so little success), and will be disruptive to society, making the attempts immoral, despite seeking a new standard of morality. Unfortunately, it often takes a long time for the majority of a society to grow and mature mentally. And while it's fine to try to aid that process, one crosses the line of human-based morality in attempting to force the situation.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 11:15:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:59:16 PM, muzebreak wrote:
So in other words, objective morality as I described it doesn't exist?

I still don't understand how you're describing it.

Something can be subjectively true but not factually true.

I still have no clue what you mean by factually true. Morality, to me, has no truth value.

Ducks are birds. That is a statement with truth value.

Don't kill other people. That, to me, has no truth value.

Also, as I said, saying factually true is redundant, so I don't know why you persist with using the term.

Factually true means it has a set value that can't change. It isn't open for interpretation.

Subjectively true means it doesn't have a set value and that the observed value may be true according to you but not to someone else. It is subject to interpretation.

Example:
it is factually true this this movie is 1hr 47 minutes long.
It is subjectively true that this movie is sad. It is true that to me, it is sad, but it may or may not be sad for others.

Do you believe that the following statement is factually or subjectively true: "raping someone for pleasure is wrong"


That's an interesting moral question. I think that question comes down to where I get my morals from, which I would answer that I don't know. My best guess would be that they are a genetic trait, developed of many many years through natural selection. Which, I believe, by your definition, is half objective, and half subjective. Instinctual morals are not open to interpretation, but are also subject to change. So, the answer boils down to both.

So in essence, you believe that some morals might be objective, but that those possible objective morals are subject to change? Also, if "rape for pleasure" is instinctually immoral, why is that so if rape helps propagate our species? Do you know of any society, regardless of culture or time period, that condoned rape for pleasure or murder without cause? If not, is it illogical to conclude that these actions are objectively immoral?

I believe objective morals can exist. But I don't know for a fact that they do. For instance, would morals created by evolutionary mechanism not fit your second criteria for objectivity? They are instinctual, so not open for interpretation. Though I wouldn't say they fit your first criteria, because I have no clue what you mean when you say morals are true, or factual. Morals do not make claims, so they have no truth value. Morals are not either right or wrong. Morals are standards, not statements. They have no truth value, and so cannot be called true. Just like how you can't call names true or false. Names are not claims. you can't say that my name is false, or true, because that makes no sense. Some things just don't have truth values.

If propagation is inherently purposeless, why does an inherent purpose exist to continue a purposeless process?

What? Why does is matter if propagation has purpose or not? How does that in any way effect morals?

It just doesn't make logical sense for something to contribute towards a purposeless purpose.

Morality entails purpose-driven actions unlike processes found in nature.

No it doesn't. Morality entails standards of right and wrong.

Which acts of morality don't entail purpose-driven actions? And actually more accurately, they entail standards of good and evil.

And what about moral choices that contradict survival and immoral choices that enhance survival?

Examples? I can't answer this unless you tell me specifically what you're talking about, otherwise I'd just be making strawmen.

A moral choice to die for a good cause. An immoral choice to rape someone and get them pregnant. A moral choice to sacrifice your time and energy on someone terminally ill just to make them happy. The moral choice to lay down your life so that someone else can live. Why are these examples of moral and immoral actions contrary or inexplicable given a naturalistic point of view?

According to his examples it was necessary.

If that's what you think, then you didn't understand his example. He never said it was necessary for propagation, he said it necessary for a beneficial degree of harmony.

Well there's two way to look at it: necessary for the act of propagation or necessary for sustained propagation. He was saying that if we didn't have morals, we wouldn't be able to sustain propagation of our species.

No, he didn't. If you disagree, I want a direct quote, because I've read his post 3 times now trying to figure out how you got this idea, but I still have no clue.

That is the same thing as saying that morals are necessary for propagation of our species if he's referring to sustained propagation. In no way did he indicate that morals aided rather than necessitated beneficial co-existence as a prerequisite for sustained propagation.

"Without standards of morality, beings cannot co-exist with any beneficial degree of harmony. Therefore, morality is an evolutionary adaptation to allow for the benefits of living in social groups." - Beastt

His first sentence states: "Without morality, any forming society would destroy itself before it formed."

That is the argument that many atheists make about why morality exists and why it's necessitated.