Morality Does Not Exist

[WITHTEETH]

The greater the empathy one has the more inclined the person will appear altruistic and dive to take a bullet for another. I feel what your saying baphomet, morality is complicated. You do not have a duty to save someones life, just live in accordance of your own morality.

On your case, when you mentioned selfishness.
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html
I always liked this read.

lets look at relativism, Where do we draw the line with it? I haven't heard anyone mention this question. Do we just let people do what they want to their children, let them circumcise their daughters? How about we draw the line biologically. But now that we have this line it can still be complicated. What about crimes like theft, and damage?

I think relativism is great personally. But only to the extent as to how i interpret the world. I see the world as definitely having inter-changeable standards, but I feel individuals should draw lines. For example; I see Christians and Muslims have different standards than me, an atheist, and i can understand why. but I draw the lines when they try to teach public school students Intelligent design creationism, and when they try to stop stem cell research, and impose their will on women when they need an abortion, or how they travel to Africa to teach how contraceptives are bad, abstinence good.

After a utilitarian looks at the statistics of how contraceptive usage and the aids virus. After a utilitarian looks at European countries and south American countries where abortion is illegal, and after a utilitarian looks at statistics on stem cell research, a utilitarian would vote for what would cause less pain, and suffering.

Then theres the question why be moral at all? Why be healthy?:sick:

WITHTEETH wrote

The greater the empathy one has the more inclined the person will appear altruistic and dive to take a bullet for another. I feel what your saying baphomet, morality is complicated. You do not have a duty to save someones life, just live in accordance of your own morality.

On your case, when you mentioned selfishness.
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html
I always liked this read.

lets look at relativism, Where do we draw the line with it? I haven't heard anyone mention this question. Do we just let people do what they want to their children, let them circumcise their daughters? How about we draw the line biologically. But now that we have this line it can still be complicated. What about crimes like theft, and damage?

I think relativism is great personally. But only to the extent as to how i interpret the world. I see the world as definitely having inter-changeable standards, but I feel individuals should draw lines. For example; I see Christians and Muslims have different standards than me, an atheist, and i can understand why. but I draw the lines when they try to teach public school students Intelligent design creationism, and when they try to stop stem cell research, and impose their will on women when they need an abortion, or how they travel to Africa to teach how contraceptives are bad, abstinence good.

After a utilitarian looks at the statistics of how contraceptive usage and the aids virus. After a utilitarian looks at European countries and south American countries where abortion is illegal, and after a utilitarian looks at statistics on stem cell research, a utilitarian would vote for what would cause less pain, and suffering.

Then theres the question why be moral at all? Why be healthy?:sick:

Couldn't have said it better myself...and what a great link... :bow:

[Demigod79]

TheJollyNihilist wrote

With respect to today’s subject, I am in the minority even among atheists. Few non-believers—no matter how strongly they reject traditional Christian morality—are willing to call moral issues strictly matters of opinion.

Actually, quite a few people here are moral relativists. In fact, I'd say that the vast majority are, in one form or another (moral objectivists like me are the minority :P ). And you're not alone outside the forums. Moral relativism is actually quite popular with the population at large (and of course to be a moral relativist you have to be an atheist, or at least a deist).

Oh, and welcome to the forums. Hope you enjoy your stay ;)

[DrunkMonkey]

ShadowofGod wrote

In the middle east, they would consider it harmful to their "god" and their culture for you to treat your wife and female children with respect and to try to give them an education.

There have been indigenous tribes who maintain that after you are a certain age, you have to go into the wilderness and die. To try to impose your morality on them, that life is sacred and such, could cause starvation and more death than there would be otherwise, due to their lack of resources.

Your assertion is bullcrap to the power of ass drudge.

To a most Muslims in the middle east:
Suppression of women = good for society, good for women = moral

To a suppressed woman that does not agree:
Suppression of women = neutral/bad for society, bad for women = immoral

In this case morality depends on the point of view- whether or not you agree that suppression of women is good for them and society.

To a person that going into the forest to die, and agrees with the principle:
Self-sacrifice = good for group, good for self (noble cause? reward in afterlife?)

To a person going into the forest against their will:
Self-sacrifice = good for group, bad for self

In this case morality depends on the point of view- it is always good for the group because of the limited resources, but it is up to the person leaving to decide if the utilitarianism balances it out.

Morality is usually relative to culture (I agree with you there), but there are absolutes. In our culture, the supression of women is wrong- this doesn't necessetate that we force our morals on middle eastern culture.

As an example of an absolute, nobody thinks that senseless murder of innocent people that has no benefit (unlike situations like the tribe mentioned above) is a moral thing to do.

Apparently you misunderstood my argument.

DrunkMonkey wrote

In this case morality depends on the point of view- it is always good for the group because of the limited resources, but it is up to the person leaving to decide if the utilitarianism balances it out.

Morality is usually relative to culture (I agree with you there), but there are absolutes. In our culture, the suppression of women is wrong- this doesn't necessitate that we force our morals on middle eastern culture.

Great post DM! Thanks for putting it that way.
That's why I ask myself all the time why several theists or conservative people feel that it's OK to force their "morals" on others.

I used to get into rather long and unpleasant arguments with an atheist friend of mine over this. I'm still not sure if we were agreeing or disagreeing with eachother.

Things are good or bad only for a specific purpose. However, when someone says "morality" they are usually refering to that which will minimize suffering. Although, it's not that simple, because some people (myself included) will not kill 10 people to save 100. There is a similar hypothetical situation in which someone holds you at gunpoint and demands that you kill another person, and if you don't do it, they will kill you and him. I would not kill the other person in this situation (if I could hold on to my rationality). The fact that that would minimize the amount of death wouldn't change the fact that I would have killed someone. And if I don't do it, I cannot be blamed for the death of the other person, or my own death. It's completely the fault of the person who shot us.

Anyway, we have to have specific purposes in mind when we talk about something being good or bad. If you ever get into an argument about morality, you should state from the beginning what your basic assumptions or goals are.

DrunkMonkey wrote

To a most Muslims in the middle east:
Suppression of women = good for society, good for women = moral

To a suppressed woman that does not agree:
Suppression of women = neutral/bad for society, bad for women = immoral

In this case morality depends on the point of view- whether or not you agree that suppression of women is good for them and society.

To a person that going into the forest to die, and agrees with the principle:
Self-sacrifice = good for group, good for self (noble cause? reward in afterlife?)

To a person going into the forest against their will:
Self-sacrifice = good for group, bad for self

In this case morality depends on the point of view- it is always good for the group because of the limited resources, but it is up to the person leaving to decide if the utilitarianism balances it out.

Morality is usually relative to culture (I agree with you there), but there are absolutes. In our culture, the supression of women is wrong- this doesn't necessetate that we force our morals on middle eastern culture.

As an example of an absolute, nobody thinks that senseless murder of innocent people that has no benefit (unlike situations like the tribe mentioned above) is a moral thing to do.

Apparently you misunderstood my argument.

I don't think i misunderstood your point. You say in your first post, in regards to TheJollyNihilist's post:

In general I agree with you, but some things are not a matter of opinion as far as being good or bad.

Which contradicts itself. Either you agree with TheJollyNihilist, who is a moral relativist, or you you think that "some things are not a matter of opinion as far as being good or bad", which is the opinion of a moral absolutist. These views are not conciliatory.

I've come to the conclusion, with this last post of yours that you simply don't understand what you're saying in regards with moral absolutism and relativism.

A Moral absolutist would argue that either a thing is moral or it isn't, regardless of context, i.e culture, history or social reasons. He could argue that lying would always be bad, be it to save your sick grandmother or to steal a million dollars from a charity. The lying would be equally bad.

A Moral relativist would argue that things are moral or not in the context or culture in which they are applied. The same action can be moral and immoral, depending the circumstances in which they happen.

I was in a hurry with my last post and had no time to shoot it down properly, so here goes.

I think that 100% of everyone on earth that is in a healthy psychological state would say that it would be bad for someone to murder them.

First of all, healthy psychological state!?!?? Is there such a thing? The entire concept of a subjective instrument(the psychologist) using a subjective field(psychology) to evaluate a subject objectively is ridiculous. I think most of what's known today as psychology will one day lay beside phrenology in the dung heaps of discarded pseudosciences. Let's not forget that atheism itself was once regarded as mental illness, not to mention homosexuality and many other things that are now more or less commonplace.

Second, conceding for the sake of argument that no one wants to be murdered, this does not mean that no one deserves it. The only place where pacifism is justified is a place where only pacifists exist. Otherwise you're either depending on the protection of other non-pacifists, and thus a hypocrite, or destined to extinction by people who don't agree with you, and thus irrelevant.

things that are harmful to other people are not moral

This is naive to the point of mental retardation, no offense intended.

For a moral absolutist to say this he would have to concede that it is immoral to take a job, because every other person who applied for it is being harmed. Another person is potentially "harmed' every time i park my car, rent a video, take a seat on a bus. Am being immoral? Or maybe you are referring to physical harm? Is it immoral to defend myself from a mugger? To resist unjust arrest? To rebel against a tyrannical government? Is it immoral to punish a child by spanking? To play a violent sport with other consenting adults? No moral absolutist would ever say this it's so easy to shoot down.

For a moral relativist to say this he would have to be high and have no understanding of philosophy in regards to morality.



Whatever your ideas on morality. you would've contradicted yourself twice with the following:

I think that morality can be universal so far as how you define it- things that are harmful to other people are not moral. Different degrees of morality and whether or not a certain action is moral (taboos) can vary from culture to culture.

If "things that are harmful to other people are not moral" is universally accepted as moral, how can it be that "moral (taboos) can vary from culture to culture"? It's an amalgamation of relativism and absolutism, and thus contradictory.

Morality is usually relative to culture (I agree with you there), but there are absolutes.

How can morality be relative from culture to culture and there still exist absolute morality? Again, amalgamation.

This is moral relativism:

To a most Muslims in the middle east:
Suppression of women = good for society, good for women = moral

To a suppressed woman that does not agree:
Suppression of women = neutral/bad for society, bad for women = immoral

In this case morality depends on the point of view- whether or not you agree that suppression of women is good for them and society.

To a person that going into the forest to die, and agrees with the principle:
Self-sacrifice = good for group, good for self (noble cause? reward in afterlife?)

To a person going into the forest against their will:
Self-sacrifice = good for group, bad for self

In this case morality depends on the point of view- it is always good for the group because of the limited resources, but it is up to the person leaving to decide if the utilitarianism balances it out.

This is moral absolutism:

As an example of an absolute, nobody thinks that senseless murder of innocent people that has no benefit (unlike situations like the tribe mentioned above) is a moral thing to do.

Define senseless, benefit, and especially innocent in a definite and universal way and maybe you have a point.

Conclusion: You need to do more research and to read over what you write before you post it.

Rilian wrote

There is a similar hypothetical situation in which someone holds you at gunpoint and demands that you kill another person, and if you don't do it, they will kill you and him. I would not kill the other person in this situation (if I could hold on to my rationality).

How is rationality what you would hold on to in this case? Reason would dictate that if you were to not kill him, the loss would be complete, and if you were to kill him, the loss would be only half(assuming you both have the same value and that the kidnapper's word was reliable). I don't think anybody could blame you in this case, seeing as how he would die anyhow. The blame would fall totally on the kidnapper, and you would have no actual fault. Guilt though is entirely relative. I would do it and maybe be impotent for a while, cry about it, visit his widow, "console" her if she were hot.

Unlike in this case:

some people (myself included) will not kill 10 people to save 100.

Inaction is culpable, and in not killing the 10 some of the responsibility is yours for the 100's death.


Game theory is applicable to both cases, though i can only do it superficially as i don't know enough of it.

ShadowofGod wrote

and that the kidnapper's word was reliable

It isn't. Of course it isn't.

Inaction is culpable

I don't think it is, and I don't have to explain why because I'm not trying to convince anyone I'm right.

But, hey, I guess I'll explain anyway. I'm not claiming this is a complete explanation, but it's what I have to offer:

Killing 10 people to save 100 people is forcing those ten people to sacrifice themselves for the "greater good". You can't do that. You can only sacrifice yourself. So, maybe if I could kill myself to save 100 people, maybe I'd do it. I don't know though, I really like living.

Dude... where's the JollyNihilist?

S/he made like one post and then we never heard from them again!

[Rhinoqulous]

Rilian wrote

It isn't. Of course it isn't.

I don't think it is, and I don't have to explain why because I'm not trying to convince anyone I'm right.

But, hey, I guess I'll explain anyway. I'm not claiming this is a complete explanation, but it's what I have to offer:

Killing 10 people to save 100 people is forcing those ten people to sacrifice themselves for the "greater good". You can't do that. You can only sacrifice yourself. So, maybe if I could kill myself to save 100 people, maybe I'd do it. I don't know though, I really like living.

Think of it this way:

You work at some type of plant that has dangerous/hazardous materials. An accident occurs, and unless you close a set of "safety" doors hazardous material will escape killing hundreds of people. If you close the doors, 10 people who haven't escaped will be trapped and killed. There is no time to come up with an elaborate plan that saves everyone. Would you close the doors, killing 10 people? Or would you stand there and do nothing, your inaction causing the deaths of hundreds more?

I think his hypothetical situation is one where the 10 are the same as the 100, and the kidnappers do this as a kind of sadism.

Baphomet wrote

Dude... where's the JollyNihilist?

S/he made like one post and then we never heard from them again!

The post was a copy and paste from his/her blog

Rhinoqulous wrote

Think of it this way:

You work at some type of plant that has dangerous/hazardous materials. An accident occurs, and unless you close a set of "safety" doors hazardous material will escape killing hundreds of people. If you close the doors, 10 people who haven't escaped will be trapped and killed. There is no time to come up with an elaborate plan that saves everyone. Would you close the doors, killing 10 people? Or would you stand there and do nothing, your inaction causing the deaths of hundreds more?

Or think of it this way: You are a doctor in a remote village where five people need organ transplants or they die. One person could sacrifice himself to supply all these people with the various organs they need, but no one volunteers. Would you have your UN bodyguards hold an innocent person down while you kill him and take his organs? Or would you let five people die?

[Rhinoqulous]

ShadowofGod wrote

I think his hypothetical situation is one where the 10 are the same as the 100, and the kidnappers do this as a kind of sadism.

Yes, but hypothetical situations such as that tend to be so far removed from any "real" context where we make moral decisions that they tell us little (if anything) about morality. I simply presented a more "realistic" dilemma that has the same outcome: Choose to kill 10 people to save hundreds, or choose to do nothing and allow the hundreds to die.