Morality without religion or god(s)

[Ausm]

Even with god or religion, morality is completely subjective and arbitrary.

Is this how you "save face" 😉

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Is this how you "save face" 😉

I've been arguing points that aren't based on any objective evidence and therefore it's sort of an exercise.and aren't all that's in my head and heart. I'm more interested in "what follows" from a particular line of reasoning, and the answer seems to be "just because" 😀

I'm thinking this may be a case of a "system" (us) trying to examine itself. We'd come up with incomplete answers. Note not "wrong" but just something so axiomatic that we really can't get to the Platonic reality if you will. We can discuss in broad terms, but as I read it's all merely opinion, but isn't that what values are anyway? An opinion on right and wrong?

How's that one 😀

 

[Charles Kozierok]

We're told that the story of Abraham being told to sacrifice Isaac and then having an angel stop him at the last second was intended both as an illustration of Abraham's loyalty to God, and as a statement against human sacrifice, which was common when the bible was written.

But on the subject of slavery, we're told, "well, you have to understand the historical context in which the bible was written".

There's a bit of a contradiction here, no?

 

[ch33zw1z]

We're told that the story of Abraham being told to sacrifice Isaac and then having an angel stop him at the last second was intended both as an illustration of Abraham's loyalty to God, and as a statement against human sacrifice, which was common when the bible was written.

But on the subject of slavery, we're told, "well, you have to understand the historical context in which the bible was written".

There's a bit of a contradiction here, no?

Religious people cherry pick what they want to support their beliefs. contradiction isn't in their vocabulary.

 

[soulcougher73]

We're told that the story of Abraham being told to sacrifice Isaac and then having an angel stop him at the last second was intended both as an illustration of Abraham's loyalty to God, and as a statement against human sacrifice, which was common when the bible was written.

But on the subject of slavery, we're told, "well, you have to understand the historical context in which the bible was written".

There's a bit of a contradiction here, no?

Well its easier to form beliefs that fit when you can cherry pick. I mean, im sure god didnt intend for you to take the bible at its word now. That would make to much sense.

 

[Moonbeam]

I've been arguing points that aren't based on any objective evidence and therefore it's sort of an exercise.and aren't all that's in my head and heart. I'm more interested in "what follows" from a particular line of reasoning, and the answer seems to be "just because" 😀

I'm thinking this may be a case of a "system" (us) trying to examine itself. We'd come up with incomplete answers. Note not "wrong" but just something so axiomatic that we really can't get to the Platonic reality if you will. We can discuss in broad terms, but as I read it's all merely opinion, but isn't that what values are anyway? An opinion on right and wrong?

How's that one 😀

I think the speech Brigandier linked above and I quoted answers your question. Moral values are facts that reside in the brain and relate to conscious states that assess wellbeing, peek and valley places the human being finds him and herself in. There are potentially many peaks as there are many foods in a nutritious diet but it is the nutritious leading to wellbeing part that is universal. Life in Palo Alto is recognizably better than life in a refuge camp. As far as the ability to judge peek states, some opinions will be better than others. We will see more in the Dali Lama than in Ted Bundy, that moral opinion will connect with moral genius and depth of knowledge about peek conscious states, that morality like physics is a field of expertise, and that as psychology and neuroscience unravel the mysteries of the human brain, a convergence of moral knowledge will and must occur based on our technological ability to destroy the immoral other. Morality is objective because it relates to values about conscious states. The morality of the Taliban are as worthless as their knowledge of physics.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well its easier to form beliefs that fit when you can cherry pick. I mean, im sure god didnt intend for you to take the bible at its word now. That would make to much sense.

Actually, its not cherry picking. The reason I say that is because the word "slavery" or "slave" takes on different meanings in the Bible depending on how its used. This is why context is everything. It can denote mere obedience as I referenced a page or two ago, being under law, or in the case of the Israelites under the yoke of Egypt, flat out abuse.

Abraham had slaves, but if some of you bother to read, one in particular was tasked to go find a wife for Isaac. These Stewarts/slaves were also given the inheritance if he had no son to give it to. This does not equal cruelty.

In Matt 24:45-47, a slave is mentioned as not being beaten or abused, but entrusted with all his master's belongings due to his obedience.

But go right ahead, keep digging through both the OT and NT looking for stuff to support your views. People for centuries have unsuccessfully cast doubt and suspicion on the Bible using similar means. When they can't, they make stuff up.

 

[Moonbeam]

Actually, its not cherry picking. The reason I say that is because the word "slavery" or "slave" takes on different meanings in the Bible depending on how its used. This is why context is everything. It can denote mere obedience as I referenced a page or two ago, being under law, or in the case of the Israelites under the yoke of Egypt, flat out abuse.

Abraham had slaves, but if some of you bother to read, one in particular was tasked to go find a wife for Isaac. These Stewarts/slaves were also given the inheritance if he had no son to give it to. This does not equal cruelty.

In Matt 24:45-47, a slave is mentioned as not being beaten or abused, but entrusted with all his master's belongings due to his obedience.

But go right ahead, keep digging through both the OT and NT looking for stuff to support your views. People for centuries have unsuccessfully cast doubt and suspicion on the Bible using similar means. When they can't, they make stuff up.

Do you think we should practice this nice kind of slavery today?

 

[Mursilis]

I think the speech Brigandier linked above and I quoted answers your question. Moral values are facts that reside in the brain and relate to conscious states that assess wellbeing, peek and valley places the human being finds him and herself in. There are potentially many peaks as there are many foods in a nutritious diet but it is the nutritious leading to wellbeing part that is universal. Life in Palo Alto is recognizably better than life in a refuge camp. As far as the ability to judge peek states, some opinions will be better than others. We will see more in the Dali Lama than in Ted Bundy, that moral opinion will connect with moral genius and depth of knowledge about peek conscious states, that morality like physics is a field of expertise, and that as psychology and neuroscience unravel the mysteries of the human brain, a convergence of moral knowledge will and must occur based on our technological ability to destroy the immoral other. Morality is objective because it relates to values about conscious states. The morality of the Taliban are as worthless as their knowledge of physics.

First, thanks for transcribing (or finding the transcript of) that talk - fascinating stuff.

Looking at what was said, however, it seems to presume that the "common good" is a shared goal. Mostly it is, but for many people, it is not. Consider the examples provided - the Dalai Lama and Ted Bundy. Most of us would agree that a society in which the Dalai Lama is free to do what he wants (meditate on compassion) is better than a society in which Ted is free to do what he wants (rape and torture women). The first society is clearly "better" by the standards of most of us - it's closer to a "peak society" - except if you're actually Ted Bundy. Then, the second society is better, because he can act without serious consequences, even if the consequences are awful for his victims.

So the rest of us (especially the women!) say tough luck, Ted, we're going to impose our moral values on you, and make it illegal to rape and torture females, because most of us find that sort of thing abhorrent, and against the common good. But of course Ted did those things anyway, because humanity isn't a single entity, it's a collection of individuals, and individuals may decide that while some moral value like the no rape/no torture law may be great for humanity, it's a terrible rule to specific individuals with twisted psyches and the desire to do such things.

Of course it's easy to say the example's absurd - few people are actually pro-rape and torture, and those people are all mentally damaged anyway. That is probably true. But there are lots of moral questions over which sane and reasonable people disagree, even in Palo Alto. The death penalty? "Just" war? Abortion? What's the morally-correct objective answer to those questions?

The other big issue I have with this talk is from this passage:

Many people worry that a universal morality would require moral precepts that admit of no exceptions.

So, for instance, if it's really wrong to lie, it must always be wrong to lie, and if you can find an exception, well then there's no such thing as moral truth. Why would we think this? Consider, by analogy, the game of chess. Now, if you're going to play good chess, a principle like, "Don't lose your Queen," is very good to follow. But it clearly admits some exceptions. There are moments when losing your Queen is a brilliant thing to do. There are moments when it is the only good thing you can do. And yet, chess is a domain of perfect objectivity. The fact that there are exceptions here does not change that at all.

A moral precept with recognized exceptions is of dubious value. A self-interested individual (that's all of us) would merely say, for almost any moral action, that I still respect the precept but I was within one of the exceptional circumstances - therefore, the precept did not apply. I'm sure 99.9% of us would accept "Do no evil" as an objective moral precept, but good luck reaching consensus on what actions are "evil" or not. The devil's always in the details.

 

[HumblePie]

Masturbation is entirely normal and natural, yet is considered "immoral" by many cultures and religions. How does this help with "self-preservation" on any level?

Homosexuality has been considered "immoral" by many. Yet homosexual orientation never went away. Instead, gays and lesbians were forced to live in secret. Many of them committed suicide. Many others forced themselves into heterosexual marriages, making themselves, their spouses and often their children miserable. How was anyone helped by that?

Women in their late teens or early 20s are at their peak of fertility. It was routine, even in Western cultures, for much older men to marry teenaged girls. At some point, this came to be viewed as repugnant or "immoral". This too acts against the notion of "self-preservation".

Speaking out against the church was once widely considered immoral, and still is by some. Yet church policies and doctrines were often squared against preservation of either individuals or society, and arguably set civilization back hundreds of years.

In Singapore, chewing gum is considered "immoral".

There are many more.

ALL morality issues stem from self preservation. Not all issues are morality issues though. Do not confuse. Masturbation is neither moral nor immoral normally. Some segments of societies, such as certain religions, have tried to label it as such. so we'll address why it's a moral issue to them.

What is the basis behind sex control in religions? why only a man and a woman? Easy, mating control and propagation. There you have it, self preservation. But why masturbation? Because many religions are focused on the idea of 1 man and 1 woman. Usually the pairing being consigned by an "ordained" person. It's to allow for more legitimacy of the act of coupling in hopes of bringing out more and healthier children that are "raised" right. Masturbation was seen as a way to promiscuity, which goes against that idea of 1 man and 1 woman for life to bear and raise children.

This since promiscuity is definitely bad to the idea of their form of self preservation, things that they believe lead to that life style are thus immoral.

Really is simple when you think about it. ALL morality issues stem from self preservation of life. Period.

Many moral issues, such as slavery, are often times later looked at and seen to be the opposite of what it once was. Usually because people stop believing in stupid shit and realize beliefs they held previously were basically bullshit.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Actually, its not cherry picking.

Of course it is.

You can't say the bible should be praised for setting a high standard of morality, and then just ignore all the places where immoral acts were condone or even encouraged.

The reason I say that is because the word "slavery" or "slave" takes on different meanings in the Bible depending on how its used. This is why context is everything. It can denote mere obedience as I referenced a page or two ago, being under law, or in the case of the Israelites under the yoke of Egypt, flat out abuse.

This is apologistic BS. The bible very specifically and clearly lays out rules for how slavery is to be conducted. It has nothing to do with "mere obedience".

In Matt 24:45-47, a slave is mentioned as not being beaten or abused, but entrusted with all his master's belongings due to his obedience.

So having slaves is okay if you don't beat them?

If that's your idea of morality, I'll pass.

But go right ahead, keep digging through both the OT and NT looking for stuff to support your views.

There's no need to dig through anything. Anyone who has actually read the bible and is even somewhat honest knows that the bible had no problem with slavery.

People for centuries have unsuccessfully cast doubt and suspicion on the Bible using similar means. When they can't, they make stuff up.

Now you're back to lying again. Didn't we go through this in a prior thread?

I gave a specific example from the bible of a moral imperative: stop human sacrifice. No such imperative was given to end slavery -- there were some rules put in place to limit how they were treated, but that's not the same thing.

Nothing was made up.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

What is the basis behind sex control in religions? why only a man and a woman? Easy, mating control and propagation. There you have it, self preservation. But why masturbation? Because many religions are focused on the idea of 1 man and 1 woman. Usually the pairing being consigned by an "ordained" person. It's to allow for more legitimacy of the act of coupling in hopes of bringing out more and healthier children that are "raised" right. Masturbation was seen as a way to promiscuity, which goes against that idea of 1 man and 1 woman for life to bear and raise children.

That's a lovely story, except for the small problem that masturbation was considered immoral in all cases, including those who weren't married and therefore would have no chance of producing children, and those who were widowed, etc.

This since promiscuity is definitely bad to the idea of their form of self preservation, things that they believe lead to that life style are thus immoral.

You said morality was about SELF-preservation. Now you're talking about the preservation of authority structures. Very different.

Really is simple when you think about it. ALL morality issues stem from self preservation of life. Period.

Repeating a claim over and over again isn't an argument.

Where's your response to my examples related to homosexuality? It's a defining example of a "morality" issue that was destructive to both the individuals involved and society as a whole.

 

[Retro Rob]

You can't say the bible should be praised for setting a high standard of morality, and then just ignore all the places where immoral acts were condone or even encouraged.

Wow, did I say that the Bible set a high standard of morality? If I did, please show me or stop putting words in my mouth.

This is apologistic BS. The bible very specifically and clearly lays out rules for how slavery is to be conducted. It has nothing to do with "mere obedience".

I don't think you can comprehend what I typed. I said "it takes on different meanings" including, but not limited to obedience. In the passage I quote, the slave was rewarded for being obedient with "his master's belongings", did it not?

Where was abused noted in that passage? Why don't you try actually reading and understanding the passages I quoted and stop your hate-laden rants, Charles, please.

So having slaves is okay if you don't beat them?

If that's your idea of morality, I'll pass.

Well pass then. You have the choice, do you not?

There's no need to dig through anything. Anyone who has actually read the bible and is even somewhat honest knows that the bible had no problem with slavery

.

Fine. You can believe what you wish. You're more than welcome to.

I gave a specific example from the bible of a moral imperative: stop human sacrifice. No such imperative was given to end slavery -- there were some rules put in place to limit how they were treated, but that's not the same thing.

Nothing was made up.

I didn't say you made anything up, nor was I quoting you. Your hatred for the Bible is on display, again, by taking my posts personal when they don't address you nor describe you. Either that, or you have distain for persons who actually aim to understand what's written and don't run and close the book when they read a "bad word".

..unless they only wish to have a basic, fundamental understanding of it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Wow, did I say that the Bible set a high standard of morality? If I did, please show me or stop putting words in my mouth.

You jumped into a discussion about whether or not the bible sets a high standard for morality, to defend the bible's depiction of slavery. That seems to imply that you support that position.

You've also made comments in the past indicating that you think the bible is something that can "teach morality".

I don't think you can comprehend what I typed. I said "it takes on different meanings" including, but not limited to obedience. In the passage I quote, the slave was rewarded for being obedient with "his master's belongings", did it not?

This is a red herring. The issue was whether or not the bible condones slavery. It does.

Fine. You can believe what you wish. You're more than welcome to.

That's very kind of you.

Your hatred for the Bible is on display, again, by taking my posts personal when they don't address you nor describe you. Either that, or you have distain for persons who actually aim to understand what's written and don't run and close the book when they read a "bad word".

I have disdain for people who deliberately ignore the very obvious inconsistencies and contradictions that are staring them in the face because they are unwilling to challenge their faith in their holy book.

I don't hate the bible. I hate the way people routinely use it dishonestly.

Pointing out problems with the bible doesn't represent irrational hatred for the bible on my part. Your refusal to address those contradictions represents irrational elevation of the bible on yours.

 

[skyking]

[TED]Science can answer questions of morality

It's been a few since I watched it, but if I recall, it basically amounts that morals exist not because of religion, but in spite of it and one day science will be able to make predictions on morality, much as sociologists do.

The reason morals exist independent of religion is that, while religions have moral codes, they are often rife with inconsistencies and in the absence of religion, certain moral codes would naturally arise.

I have read through the thread and felt the need to put this forth again, in case somebody missed it. It was well worth my time.

 

[Retro Rob]

You jumped into a discussion about whether or not the bible sets a high standard for morality, to defend the bible's depiction of slavery. That seems to imply that you support that position.

You've also made comments in the past indicating that you think the bible is something that can "teach morality".

Trying to defend your mistake instead of apologizing for it....🙄

This is a red herring. The issue was whether or not the bible condones slavery. It does.

You're right, ok... 'cause I know that's all you want to hear anyway.

 

[Juddog]

I am honestly somewhat shocked at the mental hoops that some of the "believers", such as Rob M., will go through in order to justify words in the Bible. I'll never understand how someone can claim to be a Christian and believe in the Bible 100%, yet argue about what the authors meant when such things as slavery are painted out in such plain language.

During the time when the Bible was written, slavery was 100% acceptable according to the Bible - if that's what the authors (you know - the men who made it up and wrote it down) intended when they wrote the damn thing, why not go along with it? Why try to force this modern interpretation on it that wasn't its true intent?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Rob, you're nothing but a bullshit artist.

Let's boil this down.

Does the bible make a specific point of outlawing certain actions and behaviors? Yes or no?

Does the bible make a specific point of outlawing slavery? Yes or no?

 

[HumblePie]

That's a lovely story, except for the small problem that masturbation was considered immoral in all cases, including those who weren't married and therefore would have no chance of producing children, and those who were widowed, etc.

Because it's a behavior they don't want propagated. It's not hard to discern. What is part of life by reproduction of life? And control of resources? Are not sexual mates strictly speaking another form of resource? Damn right they are. Look at many animal in the animal kingdom and you have alpha and beta males constantly fighting over the right to mate. Many organizations at the time saw the hoarding of female mating potentials as not moral to humans for progress. And yes it did and does go on to a degree in the modern world. By laying out strict guidelines to force certain mating habits, segments of human society have protected their self preservation.

And it's easier to outlaw an act with a blanket statement than to leave "loopholes" of when a behavior may be moral and may not be. Much of the past moral codes were done this way. Make everything an imperative regardless. Zero tolerance in a way.

Why the hell am I explaining how things came to be and basic human thought patterns about this? It's a simple concept as I've stated many times. Morals are all derived from self preservation. Nothing more and nothing less. Just because things get nuanced or messed up doesn't mean it didn't start from that very fact.

Repeating a claim over and over again isn't an argument.

When something is a fact like the sun is a fusion reactor or hydrogen and other elements that produces energy, there is nothing that can be said to be any different. It's a fact that all morality stems from self preservation of life. Period. The convoluted logic used afterwards to call something either moral or immoral is still based off that fact of where the root logic of any moral code or idea is stemming from.

Where's your response to my examples related to homosexuality? It's a defining example of a "morality" issue that was destructive to both the individuals involved and society as a whole.

Why do I have to explain everything based on the guidelines I've already given? Homosexuality for much of recent human history was considered immoral because it part of what I talked about before. Mating, reproduction, and controlling propagation of self preservation. Homosexuals don't reproduce, and they mess up the ordered pairing of 1 male to 1 female resources. Again, for many in the past, and still many today, homosexuality is seen as immoral because it goes against many of the self preservation directives as the basis of that person's moral structure.

Is homosexuality moral or immoral? Well the ones that state it immoral, usually they reference some passage of some religious book as to why, but the basis of which goes back to what I noted before. Those that say homosexuality is moral have other basis. That although a homosexual couple may not be reproducing, that we have over reproduced as it is. That there is too many children out there, and many are even unwanted. That a homosexual couple may be able to raised an unwanted child that would otherwise languish or even perish. That homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone else, and that the mating pool of available single men and women is no longer really diminished by a small segment of the population not being attracted to the opposite sex.

I really could go on, but I don't feel like it because I hope with the bit I provided you might be able to reason out the rest for yourself.

 

[Retro Rob]

I am honestly somewhat shocked at the mental hoops that some of the "believers", such as Rob M., will go through in order to justify words in the Bible. I'll never understand how someone can claim to be a Christian and believe in the Bible 100%, yet argue about what the authors meant when such things as slavery are painted out in such plain language.

During the time when the Bible was written, slavery was 100% acceptable according to the Bible - if that's what the authors (you know - the men who made it up and wrote it down) intended when they wrote the damn thing, why not go along with it? Why try to force this modern interpretation on it that wasn't it's true intent?

No mental hoops, just reading other passages (which I showed) and you can check them yourselves. Context, sir, is key to understanding.

You don't want understanding, you ignore context. You want understanding, you read other passages (letting the Bible interpret itself) discussing said issue. This is how I do it, and how it should be done.

 

[Juddog]

No mental hoops, just reading other passages (which I showed) and you can check them yourselves. Context, sir, is key to understanding.

You don't want understanding, you ignore context. You want understanding, you read other passages (letting the Bible interpret itself) discussing said issue. This is how I do it, and how it should be done.

What is boils down to is that you're cherry picking and making up internal excuses about said cherrypicking.

 

[Moonbeam]

Mursilis: First, thanks for transcribing (or finding the transcript of) that talk - fascinating stuff.

Mo: Was to me too

Mu: Looking at what was said, however, it seems to presume that the "common good" is a shared goal. Mostly it is, but for many people, it is not. Consider the examples provided - the Dalai Lama and Ted Bundy. Most of us would agree that a society in which the Dalai Lama is free to do what he wants (meditate on compassion) is better than a society in which Ted is free to do what he wants (rape and torture women). The first society is clearly "better" by the standards of most of us - it's closer to a "peak society" - except if you're actually Ted Bundy. Then, the second society is better, because he can act without serious consequences, even if the consequences are awful for his victims.

Mo: Which only says that the Dalai Lama is far and away more moral than Ted Bundy. A society full of Ted Bundys isn't a peek state. A society that practices compassion is better than one in which women are targeted for rape and murder. This is obvious. Nothing to argue about.

Mu: So the rest of us (especially the women!) say tough luck, Ted, we're going to impose our moral values on you, and make it illegal to rape and torture females, because most of us find that sort of thing abhorrent, and against the common good. But of course Ted did those things anyway, because humanity isn't a single entity, it's a collection of individuals, and individuals may decide that while some moral value like the no rape/no torture law may be great for humanity, it's a terrible rule to specific individuals with twisted psyches and the desire to do such things.

Mo, Right and he was executed. Not a peek state for him either.

Mu: Of course it's easy to say the example's absurd - few people are actually pro-rape and torture, and those people are all mentally damaged anyway. That is probably true. But there are lots of moral questions over which sane and reasonable people disagree, even in Palo Alto. The death penalty? "Just" war? Abortion? What's the morally-correct objective answer to those questions?

Mo: What is the conscious state in which the answers are knowable? Because we do not know the answers does not mean they won't be know with advances in psychology and neuroscience, as the speech explained. Or as with food there may be more than one good answer

Mu: The other big issue I have with this talk is from this passage:

A moral precept with recognized exceptions is of dubious value. A self-interested individual (that's all of us) would merely say, for almost any moral action, that I still respect the precept but I was within one of the exceptional circumstances - therefore, the precept did not apply. I'm sure 99.9% of us would accept "Do no evil" as an objective moral precept, but good luck reaching consensus on what actions are "evil" or not. The devil's always in the details.

The answer is in how the precept furthers or retards peek states. Protect your queen but sacrifice it for the win. The exception applies when it is better than the general rule. The answer is in the details.

In order to develop a science of morality the speaker first establishes that values are real, that they relate to the brain, that the brain can be studies, that expertise will develop and be testable according to the value produced by the state, how peek it is, etc. This is evidenced by the fact that the morality of the Taliban compares to their ability to do physics, that moral solutions they would impose are absurd. Once you establish that there are better and worse moral solutions to problems, you are off to the races to find what is best.

 

[Mursilis]

I have read through the thread and felt the need to put this forth again, in case somebody missed it. It was well worth my time.

The more I think about this talk, it just seems like a basic rehash of utilitarianism (not that utilitarianism is a bad theory; it's just not all that new). How's this different?

 

[Retro Rob]

What is boils down to is that you're cherry picking and making up internal excuses about said cherrypicking.

Nope.

It's called "letting scripture interpret scripture". You're obviously too lazy to this.

 

[Juddog]

Nope.

It's called "letting scripture interpret scripture". You're obviously too lazy to this.

Nope. It's called "here's what it actually says, and here is what I interpret it to say", where said interpretation doesn't match what the writers had intended it to mean.