No God-No objective moralities

At 4/8/2012 10:55:27 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
Given atheism, there is no satisfying reason why the survival or flourishing of species x is "good." If anything, you'd simply be submitting yourself to speciesism. Why think that what is conducive to human flourishing is any more valuable than what is conducive to the flourishing of ants or mice? Why think that inflicting harm on other members of our species is wrong? Why would it be wrong if atheism is true and we are nothing but relatively advanced primates whose inevitable destiny of death is ultimately not related to your behavior, why not do as you please?

And what if we agree that enslaving all peoples of black colored skin is morally good and conducive to society, even if people are blind to the fact. Or what if we agree that Jews are ruining society and committing a list of economic crimes so it's best we just round them up and send them to gas chambers? See, under relativism or moral subjectivism, whatever a majority of men declare to be "moral" is nothing but an opinion -- a bare arbitrary act.

I simply don't think you understood this last point. Like Plato (hence the name), Moral Platonists believe that moral values simply exist as abstractions, or Forms. So why think, given atheism and if we are nothing but the product of a blind cosmic process that spat us out and will one day swallow us whole again, that this abstractly existing realm of moral values would somehow, by sheer luck, prove to be so useful to our survivability and so alike to what we all recognize as objective moral values and duties? Under naturalism, the chances of a creature being spat out that would correspond so naturally to this abstractly existing realm of morality would be fantastically improbable.

At 4/7/2012 11:01:19 PM, phantom wrote:

At 4/7/2012 6:13:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

At 4/7/2012 6:04:38 PM, phantom wrote:

At 4/7/2012 5:55:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

At 4/7/2012 5:50:28 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:

At 4/7/2012 5:48:13 PM, phantom wrote:

At 4/7/2012 5:40:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

At 4/7/2012 5:37:19 PM, phantom wrote:

At 4/7/2012 5:34:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists might as well say "Without God, there is no objective rules of chess".

Theists: "Who are you to say that moving a knight diagonally is wrong? There needs to be a transcendent chess code"

HAHAH

So morality is just rules created by humans that we are required to follow?

We could have made the rules "Killing someone is ok" but we didn't because it would hinder the productivity of society. The rules are logically based around cooperation, there is no need to invoke a God for human ethics.

But that doesn't mean I'm REQUIRED to follow them, it just means it's beneficial if I follow them.

Exactly. Rational, if what you're saying is true, then human ethics are more of a wise suggestion then anything.

Not a wise suggestion, rules to society based on collective logic. Like rules to spelling and chess.

You can spell France with a B and move a knight diagonally and you would be objectively not using the English Language correctly or abiding by the rules of Chess correctly.

I think the problem is, Theists are thinking of strict ontological objectivity, and I'm speaking about epistemic objectivity. Paris, France is in the country France is epestemically objective but atoms exist is ontologically objective.

Sorry, but life and chess are not analogous. Chess was created by humans and if you want to play chess you have to follow the rules. Law (as referred to by you) was something created by humans but you are not required to follow those rules, because even without following them you are not contradicting any objective standards, where-as not following the rules of chess is contradicting an already set standard.

Morals are created by humans, and you are required to follow the rules if you want to be a part of society.

So if I go and do something against the rules I'm automatically excluded from society? Please, I can lie cheat and steal my whole life and still be part of society.

If someone doesn't following the rules (they rape), then they are going to jail.

And if no one finds out?

However, there are controversial laws (like marijuana) that people try to get bills past in favor of. However, you don't see people asking for bills to make murder legal, because this is not a collective goal of society.

But if it's currently illegal that means society has set a law against it, so wouldn't that mean it's morally wrong?

This can all be explained without anything transcendent. If humans all got wiped out by an asteroid today morals wouldn't exist (assuming aliens don't exist), the universe would be full of galaxy collisions, nuclear explosions, radiation, and all of things going on none of which are good or bad, nobody is getting hurt or anything. Morals came from us to try to live cooperatively as a species trying to survive in a harsh universe, not from some imaginary being we made up.

Morals came from us okay. Even if we did accept this premise it doesn't mean OBJECTIVE morals came from us or rather even exist. Assuming naturalism, so called morals should be evolving all the time, and thus would not necessarily be facts, but the result of evolution working on the way we think and act.


Questions

-The selective goals of society are ever changing. For example, hundreds of years ago it was widely accepted that we must burn witches. Therefore according to you it was a moral fact that witches should be burned. Correct?

-You say society sets up moral facts by the laws that they make. Thus if it is currently the general opinion or collective goal of society that drugs should be illegal why doesn't that make it a moral fact?

-You say we shouldn't rape because it's not a collective goal of society. Why do the collective goals of society outweigh the goals of individuals? Or rather why are the collective goals of society considered facts when goals are subjective to certain individuals?

I don't think human beings are morally superior to other sentient creatures. That is to say I don't think a human's suffering or pleasure is any more significant than another sentient creature's suffering or pleasure.

At 4/8/2012 4:05:28 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
That's very radical, and I don't think even someone like Singer goes that far. You'd honestly be indifferent to whether a cow died or a fully rational human being?

At 4/8/2012 4:05:28 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
That's very radical, and I don't think even someone like Singer goes that far.

At 4/8/2012 1:35:53 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Hi, I'm the Fool on the Hill. Ask me any question you'd like.

At 4/8/2012 4:16:35 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:

At 4/8/2012 4:05:28 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
That's very radical, and I don't think even someone like Singer goes that far.

"Essentially this means that if an animal feels pain, the pain matters as much as it does when a human feels pain—if the pains hurt just as much. How bad pain and suffering are does not depend on the species of being that experiences it."

–Peter Singer

At 4/8/2012 4:20:07 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Interesting, watch his interview with Dawkins where he states differently. Or one example I remember where he states he'd kill 10 cows before 1 human.

I don't know where your quote is from, but read this from a 2006 interview:

Interview with Peter Singer in the Independent in the UK

At 4/8/2012 3:35:37 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Again, you say "Given atheism, there is no reason to think the flourishing of our species is good". And again, I say if our ancestors had thought that way, we'd be extinct.

At 4/8/2012 4:25:59 PM, SovereignDream wrote:

At 4/8/2012 3:35:37 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Again, you say "Given atheism, there is no reason to think the flourishing of our species is good". And again, I say if our ancestors had thought that way, we'd be extinct.

And...? So what? Is morality now being defined as "whatever aids homo sapiens to survive for the longest amount of time"?

At 4/8/2012 4:20:07 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

At 4/8/2012 4:25:59 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
And...? So what? Is morality now being defined as "whatever aids homo sapiens to survive for the longest amount of time"?

At 4/8/2012 4:30:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I consider a Human life over an animals life, any day, he is basing it only on pleasure and pain, where I would argue, that a human is worth much more because of there rational capacity. That is they can be a Morally responsible agent which would in turn protect others and help progress humanity.

Cows are almost defenseless they would probaby be extinct if we didn't keep them alive for food.

At 4/8/2012 4:30:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 4/8/2012 4:20:07 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

The Fool: I think singer is a big too utilitariumism. Is a Objective consequencialist as I am but I am not so utilitarian.

I consider a Human life over an animals life, any day, he is basing it only on pleasure and pain, where I would argue, that a human is worth much more because of there rational capacity. That is they can be a Morally responsible agent which would in turn protect others and help progress humanity. Cows are almost defenseless they would probaby be extinct if we didn't keep them alive for food.

At 4/8/2012 4:27:26 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

At 4/8/2012 4:25:59 PM, SovereignDream wrote:

At 4/8/2012 3:35:37 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Again, you say "Given atheism, there is no reason to think the flourishing of our species is good". And again, I say if our ancestors had thought that way, we'd be extinct.

And...? So what? Is morality now being defined as "whatever aids homo sapiens to survive for the longest amount of time"?

Can be. The definition of morality is non-existent compared to the word "plane".

At 4/8/2012 4:44:30 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
And, for the sake of the argument, let us say that morality meant whatever aids homo sapiens to survive for the longest amount of time."