does morality exist?

[atheist princess]

My question is directed to atheists, in that... how many of you actually believe "morality" exists? I have my own personal opinion, but I want to hear what some of you think first. :)


PS: For clarity's sake, we can look to the definition of morality as, "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"

[Hyperion]

Of course we invented morality through our cognition, but our ability to have created it means that it does exist. And, of course, it's subjective, but there are some morals that are shared by a great many such as a love of life, love of family, love of nation, love of progress, etc.

[Charlotte]

Tough and great question. One I struggled with for ages and still do. On the one hand there is a non caring cosmos. An infinite, omnipotent matter which worries not about our insignificant finite lives. These thoughts are the foundation of existentialism, where as morality does not exist. But then you look at the social order of species. You see the sacrifice and rules societies of many species create in order to ensure the survival of their offspring and suddenly morality seems to be a logical conclusion/invention to cohabitation. So does morality exist? It is nothing to the cosmos, but it is something to intellectual, sentient beings. Hence, I want to say it does exist. It is a tool we invented and utilize to ensure our cohabitation and survival.

[Viole]

There is no moral absolute.

I'm not terribly fond of that statement, but I do believe it. There's no good or evil outside the minds of women and men. If there is some ultimate moral statement for us living things, it is this; do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Help and support your friends and enemies, because the universe will have no mercy on you, so you'd better hope the people around you will.

[elwalvador]

I for the longest time hated the word "morality" because I associated it with religiious beliefs, but at the same time I some how instictively had a Good and Bad meter and would consider murder to be imoral, and yet & don't believe in GOD.

But then it figured it out, all of what we consider Good ensures the 2 things that are most important Survival and reproduction and all things that are bad put us at a greater risk of being killed or not reproducing.

For exaple, If i killed some one, then I would be at a greater risk of being killed bacause now all he's Family & freinds will want to get revenge on me. So in the interest of my own survival, murder has been instictively hard wired into my brain as a BAD activety. Morals are actually a survival mechanism.

Another example, Gay sex, in the intrest of my own reproduction and passing on my genetic material into the next generation if I had a kid and I saw him having gay sex it is insticntively feels like a BAD activety to me because it conflicting with my desire to reproduce. But since we are not animals and we do not operate purely on INSTINCT we can use our intelligence to reliaze that yes this type of sex will yield not offspring but he will have many more opportuneties to have sex with a girl and give me the grand son I deserve.

Another example, donating and helping other people, this one is real easy in the interest of survival if I help somebody when they need help they will help me when I need help.

Another example, manogomy, in the inerest of reproduction a child has a much better chance of surviving if they're are 2 parents taking care of it. So if you commit adultery and break up the relationship you have now jerpordized your desire to reproduce and to make sure that your kids reproduce.

You see it's not the "Golden rule", EVERY human instict on what is morally GOOD or Bad is driven by the 2 basics desires, that are Survival and Reproduction.

[Rhinoqulous]

My question is directed to atheists, in that... how many of you actually believe "morality" exists? I have my own personal opinion, but I want to hear what some of you think first. :)


PS: For clarity's sake, we can look to the definition of morality as, "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"
While the concept of ethics and morality seems to usually be associated with religion/god, there have been just as many theories of ethics that are theist independent. The Father of Philosophy, Socrates, and his student Plato both thought that morality was independent of the gods (as the eternal Form/Idea of The Good). Kant believed that our brains possessed something he termed the Categorical Imperative, a "hard-wiring" of our brains towards moral behavior. Hume believed human ethics were nothing more than "moral sentiments", emotional reactions we have towards the world around us. J.S. Mill argued that ethics is more of a rational exercise with his hybrid of utilitarianism and liberty theory.

The point is, there are a plethora of ethical systems that have nothing to do with any form of god or religion. Even if morality is just an invention of the human mind, it still exists. The entire legal system is an invention of human minds, and nothing more, but that doesn't mean there are no reasons not to follow in accordance with it. I feel the problem is not "does ethics exist", but "how do we know what is ethical".

Rhinoq

[antitheist]

Morals are an outmoded concept that should have died out with the end of Romanticism. Morals have no place in the modern world.

It is, of course, necessary to have a set of standards to enable society to function and I prefer to call these standards values.

Value has a number of definitions including: the amount of money, goods and services charged or paid for, or the money in circulation; the desirability, useful or importance we place on things; the abilty of something to serve a purpose or cause an effect; principles and standards one sets for oneself or that are set by society. There are in addition a myriad other definitions for value: for instance, a piece on a chess board or one's liking for a piece of music, or the sound or length of a musical note.

As an example of values in action, we may value the life of one of our peacekeepers over the life of a person our peacekeepers are guarding. On the other hand, we may value the lives of people being guarded by a peacekeeper over the peacekeeper's life. These are not moral judgements, they are judgements concerning the usefulness of a people who are in need of assistance now and how useful they may be in years to come. Perhaps they have a natural resource we value so we would like to engage in trade with them.

We need laws to govern society. In a democracy, the values decided upon by a majority take precedence over the values of minorities. In a despotic regime, the law is dictated by the values of one person. In a theocracy, the law will be dictated by a few religious leaders based on values written in a text supposedly handed down by a non-existant, supernatural entity. In reality, of course, the text will have evolved over centuries.

Laws tend to reflect the values of the majority. Landowners are generally powerful figures in any society and they value their land, so a law will be constructed to make trespass a crime. Property owners value their property, so stealing will be a crime. An employer needs to retain his trained workforce and values their lives because they are an expensive property, so killing will be declared a crime. But then, there will be times such as in war, when killing is valued, so the law must be amended to allow soldiers to kill. Maybe women are valued for their ability to look after a home and produce children, so laws will be formulated to force women to stay at home.

This is how the laws of society evolve, not by a woolly sense of what is right and wrong but by evolving values, by what society finds necessary or desirable.

For us as individuals, we learn what we value through our experiences and the values of our parents and teachers.

[Sandy]

I'm an atheist and I will take a stab at whether morals exist. Of course they do but only within individuals. When I told my Mormon Bishop Grandfather I did not believe in God; he thought about it and told me that the greatest gift I could give anyone was my word of honor.

I decided at the age of 9 I could do this. I remember pledging my allegiance to the flag and found my love for America in those words. Years after I was out of school, I discovered the words "under God" had been added and I never pledged again. Before I got married I had to make absolutely certain that when I gave my word to be married to this man, it would be forever; I never dreamed he would break the oath as his father had been a Baptist Minister. He is on wife number 5 and I never married again. I'm not sure whether my oath still sits in my soul or I just never had the time to settle down with anyone.

My morals come from this word of honor stuff and it has kept me safe from jumping into situations that I might have to break it for my own survival. My close friends know me well enough to know I will keep my word and many of them have been friends for over 60 years. We feed off each other's moral codes with complete trust.

I sat down with my two girls when they were growing up and rather than issue my behavior rules to them, I asked them questions like "when you start to date, what time should you be home?" and "If you had a chance to cheat on a school test, would you do it?" Over the years the girls came up with their own list giving me their word of honor they would follow it and only in an emergency would they break them. One of the reasons for this was that we lived in an area of Topanga Canyon where earthquakes, forest fires and major flooding were part of the game of survival and I needed to know if they could handle it if I were not home. We had horses, chickens, dogs and cats who counted on us for their safety and over the years it all worked out. I saw a strength in my girls that I knew they had done it themselves. They went off to college and I knew they would manage whatever came their way.

Now that I am old and gray I can way with absolute clarity that I have never met a single Christian with a moral code as strong as mine. The idea that I could sin through my life and ask forgiveness is so ridiculous to be absurd. We are what we do and how we survive and how we can do this with honesty and responsibility. It is too easy for a Christian to lie and cheat and I avoid them whenever possible.

[freddy]

There is no morality independent of evolution, society and I'm sure several other confounding factors.

Evolution determined that humans be a social species, or at least a species capable of social interaction. And, in fact, the ability to communicate with language enables us to have a greater degree of social interaction than any other species. Nevertheless, while we do have this high-level ability, regulated social interaction has been observed in a number of other species. Work with chimps, bonobos, and apes has shown that individuals in these species read each other's facial expressions and note disapproval or approval. Individuals in these species are even deceptive so that they can avoid disapproval for actions that they know others will judge as "wrong". So, it seems, social interaction and the desire to gain approval from others is an evolutionary trait and not part of some grand priniciple outside of humans.

Of course, as society developed, we came up with a lot of rules that aren't necessarily beneficial in an evolutionary sense, but seem to make it easier for us to live together (or at least, easier for the power system to govern how we live together). So, we find that we have mutually agree it is not good to kill people who are strangers to our family or clan or tribe, even if this may have been the standard before humans grouped together into nations and states. More recently, the Western world has agreed that it is not good for children to do heavy manual labor and it is not good for parents to beat children to regulate their behavior.

There are various reasons why we have all agreed on these rules, although I would venture to say that the fundamental argument behind every, or almost every, moral priniciple is that we have determined such principles enable us to have the most functional society. This is why anthropologists have determined that moral systems did not begin to develop until family/tribe groups began to congregate into larger entities.

Some atheists do seem to believe that there are things that are objectively right or wrong. That is, they want to say, for example, that killing an innocent person is objectively wrong. I suppose this insulates us against attacks from theists who want to insist that atheists have no morality. In the long run, though, I think everyone is better off if when they approach moral questions they don't ask what is the right thing or what is the wrong thing, but instead ask what rules will give us the best society for the most people.

[LogicMan]

Here is an exact answer as to where the correct moral code comes from..
This includes both moral conduct and property rights.
There is nothing arbitrary or random* about the nature of what we are.
We are a specifically structured genetic design. An adaptation to the environment
in which we exist.
The environment in which we exist is neither random nor arbitrary*.
We call this environment the Universe. The Universe is the physical manifestation
of existence.

The proper moral code is a result of the nature of who we are (see above).
Who we are is dictated by the environment in which we exist.

*In proper context random and arbitrary are both contradictions to existence as is
the word nothing.
Proper context is the correct ordering of data into proper conceptual structures.

[Pexio]

...In the long run, though, I think everyone is better off if when they approach moral questions they don't ask what is the right thing or what is the wrong thing, but instead ask what rules will give us the best society for the most people.
Welcome to secular humanism.

[freddy]

Welcome to secular humanism.
Does that mean I have to give up my membership in the Immoral Atheist Heathens club?

[Pexio]

Welcome to secular humanism.
Does that mean I have to give up my membership in the Immoral Atheist Heathens club?
Being an atheist is almost a requirement for entry ;-)

[freddy]

I was just perusing Strange Doctrines (http://strangedoctrines.typepad.com/strange_doctrines/) and I found a link to this article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1894&e=4&u=/ap/20050405/ap_on_sc/great_apes_forgiveness) about a study of forgiveness in apes. Interesting stuff.

[psyadam]

I'm confused what is this "morality" you speak of? Every human being has basic morality in the common sense of the word (i.e. people want to help, not hurt one another).

[elwalvador]

I'm confused what is this "morality" you speak of? Every human being has basic morality in the common sense of the word (i.e. people want to help, not hurt one another).
Yes but not because they're is an absolute right and wrong, it's a survival instinct, it benefits me to help you and be on good terms with you because in the event that I need help I know you will be there for me. Morals are driven by two things, Survival & reproduction. think about it take every rule in the ten commandments and every single one of them in some major way help us all survive and reproduce.

[Maxine]

I would say that morality exists for some reasons that many have already mentioned in this thread. Yet goodness and self-interest are so intertwined that it brings to mind the concept of ethical egoism, which is quite a joke—but seems to be good enough for many political leaders. Therefore, like Charlotte, a part of me is sitting on the fence. Even Nietzsche’s Übermensch, the self-affirming individual who was beyond common morality ("Caesar with Christ's soul"), is very appealing on an personal level, yet the corollary that these higher moral standards only apply to a few would be a disaster for humanity.

[LogicMan]

On the one hand there is a non caring cosmos. An infinite, omnipotent matter which worries not about our insignificant finite lives.
How is inanimate matter omnipotent?
There are two negatives in here; non caring cosmos, and omnipotent matter which worries not about our insignificant finite lives. The non caring and insignificant life part would suggest that you have not found a really strong purpose for your life yet.

So does morality exist? It is nothing to the cosmos, but it is something to intellectual, sentient beings. Hence, I want to say it does exist. It is a tool we invented and utilize to ensure our cohabitation and survival.
We do not invent morality. Real, moral behavior is dictated by our nature. Of what we are...individual beings. This should not be confused with social trends of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. The reason I say trend is the wild fluxuation that has occured trough out history. I am sure that neither you nor any of the women on this site would have wished to live during times such as the early colonial days in a Quaker society. I say this as any atheist woman here represents such a small percentage number of the world population that you are willing to step outside of the norm. In such a society as a Quaker one you would be severly dealt with for such independence.
So what am I driving at. That without a proper logical standard it is always possible for such malevolent social orders to exist.

I'm confused what is this "morality" you speak of? Every human being has basic morality in the common sense of the word (i.e. people want to help, not hurt one another).
No it is proper to claim your own existense as yours and allow others the right to their lives. To hurt someone (I am assuming you mean physically harm) would be a violation of their property...their right to exist for there own sake.

I would say that morality exists for some reasons that many have already mentioned in this thread. Yet goodness and self-interest are so intertwined that it brings to mind the concept of ethical egoism, which is quite a joke—but seems to be good enough for many political leaders. Therefore, like Charlotte, a part of me is sitting on the fence. Even Nietzsche’s Übermensch, the self-affirming individual who was beyond common morality ("Caesar with Christ's soul"), is very appealing on an personal level, yet the corollary that these higher moral standards only apply to a few would be a disaster for humanity.
Self interest is good so long as it does not deny anothers right to exist for their own sake.

I must confess something here. I am somewhat surprised that the women here (at this site) are not more fired up on the right to exist for their own sake and that they are not more familiar with the logical origin of this right. I say this because of history. All the time that women's lives were privilages dictated by men. That in order to have anything remotely close to freedom a woman had to be an expert manipulator of men. Maybe enough time has passed and equality movements have made this not so big a deal.

[antitheist]

Morality is a system of behavioural values decided upon by individuals themselves and/or the leaders of society. Some behavioural values (morals) are dictated by politicians and absorbed by society, some are absorbed because of the lives or sayings of a celebrity, be that celebrity charismatic or Messianic.

Behavioural values (morals) may be dictated or influenced by the religious beliefs of susceptible individuals or of the religious cult or system to which susceptible individuals either choose to submit or are forced to submit, whether by psychological or physical means.

Behavioural values (morals) dictated by religious leaders or religious texts tend to be over simplified and often lead to judicial or violent conflict.

Behavioural values that are not moralistic are:

1. dictated by the fitness landscape (behaviour that becomes, over time, genetically instinctive)

2. dictated by culture (behaviour that it absorbed from original memes).

[Jennifer]

Behavioural values that are not moralistic are:

1. dictated by the fitness landscape (behaviour that becomes, over time, genetically instinctive)

I think of myself as sometimes moral - certainly more moral than George Bush - and when I say that I mean that I make choices based on what I think is best for the community in general, and not neccessarily what is best for me as an individual...and I don't do it because I'm afraid of an imaginary friend. Now that I think about it, I don't have any logical reason for taking those actions except that it seems like the 'right thing to do'.

I guess this whole topic is kind of like asking "Are there Inalienable Rights?" - outside of human meme pool, no. Inside the human meme pool, sure. But I think morality is determined individually - not by a dictator/leader.

[VOICE-of-REASON]

Self interest is good so long as it does not deny anothers right to exist for their own sake.
Actually, it is not in your interest to deny others the right to exist for their own sake. If you do so, on what logical grounds can you claim such a right for yourself to begin with?

What is in your interest is the good. But what exactly is to your interest is what has to be rationally determined.

P.S: there are no ‘conflicts of interest’ among rational men.

I think of myself as sometimes moral…and when I say that I mean that I make choices based on what I think is best for the community in general, and not neccessarily what is best for me as an individual…it seems like the 'right thing to do'.
“Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it? Does virtue consist of serving vice? Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?”

~Ayn Rand. “This is John Galt Speaking”, Atlas Shrugged.

[Jennifer]

“Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you?

See now I already said it wasn't logical.

[VOICE-of-REASON]

See now I already said it wasn't logical.
But then , on what rational grounds can you call yourself ‘moral’?

And if you admit that it isn’t logical, why do you still keep doing it? Why are you irrational on purpose?

[Jennifer]

...I suppose I think its and instinctive urge that has served the species well.

[VOICE-of-REASON]

Um...OK. I'd suggest that you check that premise though.

[Jennifer]

Yes, I saw it - that instintive <> moral.
I think most animals instinctively do not kill their own (barring starvation, or some accident like rams getting their horn locked). I think that not killing other homosapiens is considerred Moral, but not because it says so in the Bible. In my opinion the dogma follows the instinct.

In other words. I disagree with the premise.

[Maxine]

LogicMan wrote:

The non caring and insignificant life part would suggest that you have not found a really strong purpose for your life yet.
Hmm, you seem too sure of yourself; in which ways did the above statement led your conclusion? Isn’t your comment about Charlotte’s lack of purpose for her life—foolish?

LogicMan wrote:

We do not invent morality. Real, moral behavior is dictated by our nature. Of what we are...individual beings. This should not be confused with social trends of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. The reason I say trend is the wild fluxuation that has occured trough out history. I am sure that neither you nor any of the women on this site would have wished to live during times such as the early colonial days in a Quaker society. I say this as any atheist woman here represents such a small percentage number of the world population that you are willing to step outside of the norm. In such a society as a Quaker one you would be severly dealt with for such independence.
So what am I driving at. That without a proper logical standard it is always possible for such malevolent social orders to exist.
The paragraph above indicate that you are writing about Natural Law—you must know that this concept has gone through major disagreements throughout history so your believes in it does not hold an absolute truth. If we look at our current charter of human rights for example; it is based on comparative values and not that much on natural law. It is obvious that some of our values are intrinsic to our nature but, I unlike you, think that most of our values are created by our conscious mind. It is quite clear when observing the cognitive development of a child over a period of time that he/she may at age five understand the consequences of his/her action very differently at 20—experiences, feelings, thoughts, reason, rationality and logic (which you have mentioned and is in contraction with your claim that we do not invent morality)are part of the process in selecting standard behaviours—so did you really have a point?

LogicMan wrote:

Self interest is good so long as it does not deny anothers right to exist for their own sake.
I already know that!

[LogicMan]

Self interest is good so long as it does not deny anothers right to exist for their own sake.
Actually, it is not in your interest to deny others the right to exist for their own sake. If you do so, on what logical grounds can you claim such a right for yourself to begin with?
I think we are saying the same thing.

LogicMan wrote:

The non caring and insignificant life part would suggest that you have not found a really strong purpose for your life yet.
Hmm, you seem too sure of yourself; in which ways did the above statement led your conclusion? Isn’t your comment about Charlotte’s lack of purpose for her life—foolish?
In retrospect it was unacceptable for me to indulge in psychobable and I will not take this any further as it is not fair to Charlotte. Charlotte I apologize.

The paragraph above indicate that you are writing about Natural Law—you must know that this concept has gone through major disagreements throughout history so your believes in it does not hold an absolute truth. If we look at our current charter of human rights for example; it is based on comparative values and not that much on natural law. It is obvious that some of our values are intrinsic to our nature but, I unlike you, think that most of our values are created by our conscious mind. It is quite clear when observing the cognitive development of a child over a period of time that he/she may at age five understand the consequences of his/her action very differently at 20—experiences, feelings, thoughts, reason, rationality and logic (which you have mentioned and is in contraction with your claim that we do not invent morality)are part of the process in selecting standard behaviours—so did you really have a point?
There is no contradiction, rather I did not start from the beginning (mostly because I have posted on this subject alot).
Here is the error: "I unlike you think that most of our values* are created by our conscious mind."

Our mind is used to observe the environment (the nature of the universe as well as ourselves) around us. As we take in that data we contextually arrange (hopefully in proper fashion) it into conceptual structures.
We do not create definitions, rather we observe the nature of that which exists. That which exist defines itself by its's properties. We have nothing to say about this. We simply must observe correctly.

We exist and are defined by the properties that make us what we are and this ultimately leads to the following: As individuals have the right to exist for our own sake.

This is purely a logical progression. We do not create morals, but rather through proper observation of reality we decern that which is moral.

Everything in existence is structured and nothing is truely random, morality is no exception.

*As to values; these are an individual thing as it pertains to that which you value, or to those things that I value (or any individual). If these values which we desire is beneficial to our being, then it is a positive value (making us stronger). If however the value that is pursued is destructive to our being, then it is a negative value (making us weaker).

As for the example of the child; the child is engaging in the proper act of testing his and or her environment. If the child does not become corrupted by any irrational adults around him (her) they will sooner or latter (hopefully) understand that proper scientific methodologies (a moral action in itself) are the only way to, in fact, achieve anything. Including the understanding of how to live a moral existense, which is to objectively identify and understand what we are (as a species), and what that means when it comes to interactions with other individuals.

[HMS Beagle]

My question is directed to atheists, in that... how many of you actually believe "morality" exists? I have my own personal opinion, but I want to hear what some of you think first. :)


PS: For clarity's sake, we can look to the definition of morality as, "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"
Yes, it exists. It exists among both the religious (almost all religions, and called the Golden Rule in our culture) and the non-religious (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_Reciprocity). It has existed since Egyptian times, which is to say since mankind's recorded history.

My question to you: Why ask us? I hesitate to suggest that you're still at the sophomoric stage of believing that, because atheists don't fear punishment in an afterlife, we're inclined to do heinous deeds. War is among the most heinous of deeds. Humanity has long since been overwhelmed by evidence of theistic wars. Where's your evidence that atheists are as bad? The burden of proof is on you.

[benjaminbp18]

Does "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct" exist?
Gee, let me think... YEAH!!!! :P

I'll guess that your asking if a supreme morality exists, one that is universal. The answer is no, morals varies from person to person and are based on an individuals logic and beliefs. "Goodness" flows from the adherence of a moral. "Bad" is the product of a lack thereof. No, there is no universal code of morality, but there are better ones. Supreme forms of morality exist by forms of logic and belief that disprove others.

[Coldbourne]

Goodness" flows from the adherence of a moral. "Bad" is the product of a lack thereof.
So how would you differentiate in a situation in which the "good" morals of two societies conflict?

Also, logic is a generalization based off of pre-conceived concepts of what is considered logical. These concepts are dictated by the society of the logics origin. Logic is in itself not a means to an end, nor a litmus test for what actions are determined to be best for a group, social order, or an individual.

[HeWhoAsks]

Goodness" flows from the adherence of a moral. "Bad" is the product of a lack thereof.
So how would you differentiate in a situation in which the "good" morals of two societies conflict?
The same way in which you'd do so with two societies that are bound by their separate religions, each of which demands that it is the sole and absolute truth.

Moral relativism and absolutism do not offer a better or worse method for such a differentiation.

[ocmpoma]

"Also, logic is a generalization based off of pre-conceived concepts of what is considered logical. These concepts are dictated by the society of the logics origin. Logic is in itself not a means to an end, nor a litmus test for what actions are determined to be best for a group, social order, or an individual."

I agree that logic has nothing to do with determinations of 'best', 'good', etc. However, since logic is based on rationality (that is, logic is quantitative), I don't see how any pre-concieved concepts enter into it.

[LogicMan]

I'll guess that your asking if a supreme morality exists, one that is universal. The answer is no,
Supreme is a not a good word however the actual answer is yes

morals varies from person to person and are based on an individuals logic and beliefs.
Logic is not a variable like a persons hair color. It is the scientific methodology of organizing objectively aquired facts of that which exists. Logic also has no relation to beliefs. Logic is a tool of science; Belief is the tool of anti science.

forms of morality exist by forms of logic and belief that disprove others.
Logic can not disprove logic. That is an oxymoron. Logic that does not stand the test of reality is an incorrect (flawed) attempt at logic (at arranging facts in proper context).

As "beliefs" are the attempt to accept the unproven as fact, they can be proven incorrect via proper logic.

[Striver]

morality exists in that it's a concept. So it's an abstract thing, but since people demonstrate it in their behavior, it exists. But with all abstract concepts, we can't say that it exists as a thing. Gravity exists, but we only know that it exists because of the behavior of objects in attraction to one another.

An interesting question you might be asking is, is morality absolute. someone else posted on that, and I agree with him, there is no moral absolute. You can't say that xyz is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. We have common rules that we follow amongst one another that we consider "morals", but go to another country, and they're often different.

I made a post about values being useful, but I'm not taking the stance that they're universal, or absolute. To say that they are so is to essentially cripple oneself psychologically. Nevertheless, I don't lie or steal or kill, because they are so often bad ideas. I'd also agree with the others, that my brain has probably been wired not to do them at this point.

[ratbastard333]

No, I don't believe it does. This is just a test. More to follow if this is successful.

[ratbastard333]

I agree with Joseph Campbell: He asked a Guru "how can one reconcile oneself to murder, war, rape, etc.? If all is the One, then how is it possible for such evil to exist, and how can we say NO to it? The guru responded, "for you and I, we say Yes". In other words, what's evil for you is not evil for someone or something else. It is all a part of the greater whole and in its role it is perfect. In fact there is nothing but perfection when viewed from this point of view. The only failure is misunderstanding.

[valleyshrew]

Morality arose as in the manner of behaving which enhances the lives of the population in general. People knew murder was wrong because they didn't want to be murdered, so they don't murder people in the hope that the same will happen to them.

But much of what's considered "moral" today is not. What kind of moral standard views sexuality as worse than hatred?

[skatendrumnkillyourfamily]

i think morality is intrinsic and necessary to our survival as human beings.

[NihilistThug]

You can always define morality into existence. But given what people almost always mean, which is to say imperatives (should/should not) and normatives (ought/ought not) then it is logically impossible for morality to exist. It's meaningless gibberish, to speak of it is to babble and exists only because of a sort of grammatical fallacy. 'Ought' makes no sense without an a priori objective, IE "if you want to get some milk you ought to go to the store". It makes absolutely no sense to postulate that one 'ought' to go to the store, because someone could always reply "why"?
Further, even if you could 'prove' morality (which you can't) I could always say, "so what?" which means morality has absolutely no predictive or instructional value, if it did exist (which it doesn't).
Ethical debates are retarded.

[Another brick in the wall]

Ethics are necessary to operate a society with the minimal amount of suffering.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

I don't believe in morality handed down by god(s) or that we will be eternally rewarded or punished for our deeds, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect everyone to live by certain moral "ground rules", just to make everyone's lives easier. I think everyone can agree that murder, stealing, rape, etc. are wrong and should be punished.

[Sir Sin-O-Lot]

I live by this code, one may do what one wishes as long as it does not harm or impede on another's ability to do the same. I am still working on it though.

[NihilistThug]

Ethics are necessary to operate a society with the minimal amount of suffering.
1. A priori value judgement.
2. False.
3. So what.
4. Ethics still aren't real.
All you're saying is that you believe (incorrectly) that people need ideology not to beat eachother to death. Morality still isn't real.

I have NEVER had any sort of 'moral' problem, I've never wondered whether something was 'good'. People who worry about this shit mystify me, because they're debating something neither of them can define or give logical examples of. It's as rational as theology: morons debating bullshit.

Society isn't REAL.
And if 'society' gets in my way, fuck 'society'. I exist as myself and for myself. The only thing that 'matters' is what I want to.

Christ I hate talking to people.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Ethics are necessary to operate a society with the minimal amount of suffering.
1. A priori value judgement.
2. False.
3. So what.
4. Ethics still aren't real.
All you're saying is that you believe (incorrectly) that people need ideology not to beat eachother to death. Morality still isn't real.

I have NEVER had any sort of 'moral' problem, I've never wondered whether something was 'good'. People who worry about this shit mystify me, because they're debating something neither of them can define or give logical examples of. It's as rational as theology: morons debating bullshit.

Society isn't REAL.
And if 'society' gets in my way, fuck 'society'. I exist as myself and for myself. The only thing that 'matters' is what I want to.

Christ I hate talking to people.
So, you aren't a libertarian then?

[NihilistThug]

Ethics are necessary to operate a society with the minimal amount of suffering.
1. A priori value judgement.
2. False.
3. So what.
4. Ethics still aren't real.
All you're saying is that you believe (incorrectly) that people need ideology not to beat eachother to death. Morality still isn't real.

I have NEVER had any sort of 'moral' problem, I've never wondered whether something was 'good'. People who worry about this shit mystify me, because they're debating something neither of them can define or give logical examples of. It's as rational as theology: morons debating bullshit.

Society isn't REAL.
And if 'society' gets in my way, fuck 'society'. I exist as myself and for myself. The only thing that 'matters' is what I want to.

Christ I hate talking to people.
So, you aren't a libertarian then?
I'm anarchistic and I like capitalism. If you define libertarian as, say, NAP as defined by Rothbard then no (although I agree with him on a lot of economic stuff). But the term Libertarian goes back at least to Benjamin Tucker, and just means individual anarchist which I certainly am.
A precise description of my philosophy would be along the lines of:
Teleoglocial: Egoist, Individual Anarchist
Methodological: Existential Nihilist, Existential Empiricist.

[Rhinoqulous]

Ethics are necessary to operate a society with the minimal amount of suffering.
1. A priori value judgement.
2. False.
3. So what.
4. Ethics still aren't real.
All you're saying is that you believe (incorrectly) that people need ideology not to beat eachother to death. Morality still isn't real.

I have NEVER had any sort of 'moral' problem, I've never wondered whether something was 'good'. People who worry about this shit mystify me, because they're debating something neither of them can define or give logical examples of. It's as rational as theology: morons debating bullshit.

Society isn't REAL.
And if 'society' gets in my way, fuck 'society'. I exist as myself and for myself. The only thing that 'matters' is what I want to.

Christ I hate talking to people.
If you hate talking to people so much, why do you bother posting? Is NihilistThug lonly? :rolleyes:

Come on everyone, lets give NihilistThug a hug. He's crying out to be loved, dammit.

[Paul B]

1. A priori value judgement.
2. False.
3. So what.
4. Ethics still aren't real.
All you're saying is that you believe (incorrectly) that people need ideology not to beat eachother to death. Morality still isn't real.

I have NEVER had any sort of 'moral' problem, I've never wondered whether something was 'good'. People who worry about this shit mystify me, because they're debating something neither of them can define or give logical examples of. It's as rational as theology: morons debating bullshit.

Society isn't REAL.
And if 'society' gets in my way, fuck 'society'. I exist as myself and for myself. The only thing that 'matters' is what I want to.

Christ I hate talking to people.
So, you aren't a libertarian then?
I'm anarchistic and I like capitalism. If you define libertarian as, say, NAP as defined by Rothbard then no (although I agree with him on a lot of economic stuff). But the term Libertarian goes back at least to Benjamin Tucker, and just means individual anarchist which I certainly am.
A precise description of my philosophy would be along the lines of:
Teleoglocial: Egoist, Individual Anarchist
Methodological: Existential Nihilist, Existential Empiricist.
Oddly enough this is the personal philosophy of my toddler. As far as I can tell the only downside is that it is hell on laundry.

Teleoglocial: Selfish adherent to infantilism.
Methodological: Frequent self-scatification.

And they wonder why we can't get prayer out of schools...

[ElDiablo]

My question is directed to atheists, in that... how many of you actually believe "morality" exists? I have my own personal opinion, but I want to hear what some of you think first. :)


PS: For clarity's sake, we can look to the definition of morality as, "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"
No. Morality does not exist. At least not in the context of the animal world. And, we are animals. Survival of the species is what all living things do. Period. Each species and their societies determine the societal order by which they function. These "rules" maintain harmony, effectively ensuring the survival of the species. No magic, no religion, no "good" vs. "evil".
We are NO DIFFERENT as the human species. In order to ensure survival, we MUST have order. It's not rocket science. :)

[lesserpanda]

Sorry to hop back on an old post, everyone. Just throwing my two cents in here. I would like to point out a problem with the definition, just to be annoying.

We're working off the idea that morality is the ability to discern between right and wrong, good and evil. These concepts are tricky at best, mostly because we can't all agree on what those things are, or if they exist, which is a more important question. NihilistHoodlum here does not actually hate morality, he just defines good differently. It was a nice attempt to be bad ass, however.