Morality without religion or god(s)

[HumblePie]

It was perfectly moral for cannibals to eat people. If you were to have asked them they might have viewed it as a positive ritual, contributing to social stability.

Is that more or less "objective" than or 180 degree out view?

Cannibals never ate living people. Not as a society. They ate their dead relatives to honor them. To them THAT was a moral imperative. It promoted several things. Remembrance of their fallen, food for the living, and societal bonding of friends, neighbors, and family. It was done as whole group and not an individual savage.

Learn a bit of history about it please if you are going to use it as an example.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It defines whatever a society calls reality. There is no basis other than consensus.

"Society" doesn't define anything. Society is but a collection of individuals, each who themselves define the meaning of the reality they experience. Moral bases reside in each individual, therefore.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Cannibals never ate living people. Not as a society. They ate their dead relatives to honor them. To them THAT was a moral imperative. It promoted several things. Remembrance of their fallen, food for the living, and societal bonding of friends, neighbors, and family. It was done as whole group and not an individual savage.

Learn a bit of history about it please if you are going to use it as an example.

That's endocannabolism. I suggest you read up on the exocannabalistic practices of the Aztecs and their captives. No they weren't eaten alive. Being cut up to feed to one's family mage more sense. OK now reconcile that with our objective morality.

I assume your vast knowledge of history meant you knew that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

"Society" doesn't define anything. Society is but a collection of individuals, each who themselves define the meaning of the reality they experience. Moral bases reside in each individual, therefore.

What is your scientific basis for that claim?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This. All moral codes are absolute. An argument for an objective moral code would be difficult to make without resorting to a popularity contest or appeal to authority.

But that would still miss the mark. Moral objectivists (try to) argue that "right" and "wrong" are worldly facts -- something like the properties of objects. Of course, I've yet to see a rigorously defined and simultaneously coherent idea of what "objective morals" actually are.

Many Evangelical Christians with whom I've debated seem to think that the presumed reality of their god could make it so, but again, no one has ever presented me with a coherent explanation of how that could be the case. The best they could do is argue that the (again, presumed) "unchanging" nature of their god as the "moral lawgiver" establishes a fixed moral code, but never could quite establish it as an objective reality.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What is your scientific basis for that claim?

I'm sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree. Are you just trying to be difficult or are you legitimately confused?

 

[Thebobo]

I often wondered how people on the Religious right who have no problem telling the sick and poor to get fucked consider themselves moral....:whiste:

You wont see that in the debate club forum!

Very funny imo....

 

[waggy]

"Society" doesn't define anything. Society is but a collection of individuals, each who themselves define the meaning of the reality they experience. Moral bases reside in each individual, therefore.

disagree.

society is a collection of people. that collection of people dictate what is moral at the time.

Morals change throughout history.

 

[Retro Rob]

Old Testament: too many to count.

New Testament (for the people that ignore the old testament):
Ephesians 6:5
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

Timothy 6:1
"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered."

That text merely reflects that slavery was practiced at the time, but doesn't endorse it.

Actually, he's another dishonest cherry-picker with no point to prove. Slaves are referred to often as those who are working under another, or is obedient to another. For instance, Matt 24:45-47 speaks of a "faithful slave" being entrusted with all his maters belongings. How many "slaves" are entrusted with any of his maters belongings? Slavery, as we come to know it, doesn't reflect entrusting said slave with anything.

However, slavery has an extremely negative connotation tied to it due to the abusive, oppresive slavery in modern times. He's rigorously defining the term to dishonestly misrepresent Biblical commentary on the word -- something done by nearly all Bible opponents. People who actually read the Bible with the view to understand it don't hold such views.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

disagree.

Noted.

society is a collection of people. that collection of people dictate what is moral at the time.

You've made the same mistake as HR. Every person decides for himself what his own personal values are. "Society" does not. One can certainly attempt to aggregate common values among a population, but the values remain individual.

I will grant you that in everyday conversation it is convenient to speak about aggregate values as though the aggregates are objective facts, but it is a mistake when speaking rigorously about morality and its basis.

Morals change throughout history.

Fantastic.

 

[Munky]

What exactly are you getting at? IMO, humans are born with a basic understanding of morality principles, such as reciprocity. In other words, we don't need religion to know that if someone commits murder, the death penalty is a reasonable punishment for them.

But when someone tells me that I - who put an effort into maintaining a healthy lifestyle and keeping a decent paying job - should be obligated to support some fat lazy slob, that's completely different. Not only does it go against reciprocity, but the very premise of it being their right is laughable. It's a right to freedom of speech and to bear arms, meaning that the government shall not infringe on it. However it does not make you entitled to have your own TV show or to have someone else pay for your gun. Similarly, one does not have the right to demand that others pay for their healthcare.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree. Are you just trying to be difficult or are you legitimately confused?

When claiming objectivity there ought to be evidence for that claim. My point is that while humans are social animals and so our brains have a predisposition to act in ways approved by existing consensus, there is no defining inherent rules. Slavery is moral. Slavery is not. Feeding your enemy to your family is moral, or not. That does not come the individual, but through upbringing. If you mean that morals are a consequence of the neurological development of our species, sure. Everything we do is the result of that, so it's rather trivial. Consequently morals are simply a result of evolution, which has no point. What we do is simply a result of adaptive pressure with no right or wrong other than what we choose to those terms.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Everything that we define as moral in human values stems directly from self preservation.

This is an odd claim. I think it is easier to argue the exact opposite -- that most morality is used to suppress innate human nature, which is what stems directly from self-interest (whether actual or believed.)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Noted.


You've made the same mistake as HR. Every person decides for himself what his own personal values are. "Society" does not. One can certainly attempt to aggregate common values among a population, but the values remain individual.

/QUOTE]

So the only valid judge is the individual who always does what is wrong or right in his or her eyes. Therefore all action is equally moral, unless measured by an external standard, and those with power to enforce penalties are doing so according to their internal standards which objectively are no more "correct" than any other.

 

[Anarchist420]

The Party of Great Moral Frauds has always been evangelical and has always used the State to legislate what they believe to be morality while trying to build a damn world empire via mass murder, looting, plundering, pillaging and rape... that's why the Party of Hamilton, Clay, and Lincoln is the party of Great Moral Frauds.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is an odd claim. I think it is easier to argue the exact opposite -- that most morality is used to suppress innate human nature, which is what stems directly from self-interest (whether actual or believed.)

I'm risking speaking out of turn and therefore may misrepresent the quoteds thought, but I believe he means actions which are beneficial are "moral" and those which are harmful "immoral. That would be distinct from "morality", which is a concept which approved of positive behavior as defined by a particular culture and the suppression of the reverse.

Semantics is a bitch.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Party of Great Moral Frauds has always been evangelical and has always used the State to legislate what they believe to be morality while trying to build a damn world empire via mass murder, looting, plundering, pillaging and rape... that's why the Party of Hamilton, Clay, and Lincoln is the party of Great Moral Frauds.

Where does morality come from and who is the legitimate authority of what defines it?

 

[IronWing]

The Party of Great Moral Frauds has always been evangelical and has always used the State to legislate what they believe to be morality while trying to build a damn world empire via mass murder, looting, plundering, pillaging and rape... that's why the Party of Hamilton, Clay, and Lincoln is the party of Great Moral Frauds.

Okay, and how does this tie back to the discussion at hand?

 

[Munky]

The Old Testament is very specific and detailed regarding Slavery. However, even the New Testament discusses Slavery without raising even the slightest quibble of moral protest against it.

You realize that slavery was a commonly practiced social system back in the day, right? It wasn't the abomination you know it to be until some enlightened progressives decided that it was. Which brings me to my next point - if I am forced to pay part of my income to someone else in exchange for nothing, is that moral or not? Because I can make an argument that such forced wealth redistribution is also a form of slavery and should be abolished.

 

[HumblePie]

This is an odd claim. I think it is easier to argue the exact opposite -- that most morality is used to suppress innate human nature, which is what stems directly from self-interest (whether actual or believed.)

Going to answer two questions here.

Not odd at all. We define moral codes both as individuals and as a society/pack. Each one stems from self preservation.

Even the Aztecs, as Hayabusa mentioned, for eating the hearts of other people did so as a delusional sacrifice as a society hoping the sacrifice would bring preservation and greater prosperity to the society as a whole. That was why it was moral for Aztecs to make human sacrifice. Side note though, Aztecs may have eaten human flesh but aren't typically considered cannibals. Nor was it wholly done as part of their society, but to certain individuals. The true cannibals only ate the dead and did so out of respect and as a food staple.

It's not odd because it's the basic foundational truth to any and every moral code. Even ones later to be considered not moral, such as human sacrifice and minor cannibalism by the Aztecs, were done out a misguided and mis informed sense of self preservation.

 

[IronWing]

You realize that slavery was a commonly practiced social system back in the day, right? It wasn't the abomination you know it to be until some enlightened progressives decided that it was. Which brings me to my next point - if I am forced to pay part of my income to someone else in exchange for nothing, is that moral or not? Because I can make an argument that such forced wealth redistribution is also a form of slavery and should be abolished.

You can very well make that claim and, of course, be correct from your moral perspective. However, politics ain't about morals regardless of how much the practitioners pretend it to be.

 

[IronWing]

Going to answer two questions here.

Not odd at all. We define moral codes both as individuals and as a society/pack. Each one stems from self preservation.

Even the Aztecs, as Hayabusa mentioned, for eating the hearts of other people did so as a delusional sacrifice as a society hoping the sacrifice would bring preservation and greater prosperity to the society as a whole. That was why it was moral for Aztecs to make human sacrifice. Side note though, Aztecs may have eaten human flesh but aren't typically considered cannibals. Nor was it wholly done as part of their society, but to certain individuals. The true cannibals only ate the dead and did so out of respect and as a food staple.

It's not odd because it's the basic foundational truth to any and every moral code. Even ones later to be considered not moral, such as human sacrifice and minor cannibalism by the Aztecs, were done out a misguided and mis informed sense of self preservation.

Your argument is a tautology. There is simply no circumstance that could possibly serve as a counterpoint.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

When claiming objectivity there ought to be evidence for that claim.

Which claim, exactly?

My point is that while humans are social animals and so our brains have a predisposition to act in ways approved by existing consensus, there is no defining inherent rules.

You are legitimately confused. Nobody is talking about any "inherent rules," and even less so about "defining" them, as if that would even make sense.

Slavery is moral. Slavery is not. Feeding your enemy to your family is moral, or not. That does not come the individual, but through upbringing.

To be sure, our individual values are shaped by our upbringing, but they are still our individual values, and we shape them ourselves through constant feedback from the external world.

If you mean that morals are a consequence of the neurological development of our species, sure.

How could anything I've said be construed in this way?

Everything we do is the result of that, so it's rather trivial.

I'm not a reductionist.

Consequently morals are simply a result of evolution, which has no point. What we do is simply a result of adaptive pressure with no right or wrong other than what we choose to those terms.

Morals are the result of values. Values require a valuer. That's all that there is to it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So the only valid judge is the individual who always does what is wrong or right in his or her eyes.

No. Everyone is a valid judge.

Therefore all action is equally moral...

Nonsense. You might as well say that since everyone has their own favorite flavor of ice cream, all flavors taste the same. You're reifying morality.

...unless measured by an external standard, and those with power to enforce penalties are doing so according to their internal standards which objectively are no more "correct" than any other.

When you attempt to employ absurd concepts like "objective morality" it should be no wonder you get absurd results.

 

[alzan]

Actually, he's another dishonest cherry-picker with no point to prove. Slaves are referred to often as those who are working under another, or is obedient to another. For instance, Matt 5:45 speaks of a "faithful slave" being entrusted with all his maters belongings. How many "slaves" are entrusted with any of his maters belongings? Slavery, as we come to know it, doesn't reflect entrusting said slave with anything.

However, slavery has an extremely negative connotation tied to it due to the abusive, oppresive slavery in modern times. He's rigorously defining the term to dishonestly misrepresent Biblical commentary on the word -- something done by nearly all Bible opponents. People who actually read the Bible with the view to understand it don't hold such views.

You sure about that? A wiki search and a biblegateway.com search both came up with: "5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. "

Not to derail but slavery, at least as the Bible defines it, can be thought of as a moral and ethical practice? If that's the case I'll keep my non-religious based morals and hang onto them, thank you very little.