Morality without religion or god(s)

[Charles Kozierok]

Because it's a behavior they don't want propagated. It's not hard to discern.

No, it's not. It's about control. Most of religion is.

What's hard to discern is how this represents "self-preservation". I'm sorry, but I really don't think you've made your case very well.

Look at many animal in the animal kingdom and you have alpha and beta males constantly fighting over the right to mate.

And do you think young males who are guilt-tripped into not releasing their sexual desires are less likely to engage in such?!

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.

That's fine. But it has nothing to do with self-preservation.

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.

That's true.

But "all morality is about self-preservation" isn't a fact. It's an opinion. And IMO you're not doing a great job of defending it, because you're not tackling head on the counterexamples.

It's a fact that all morality stems from self preservation of life. Period.

No, that is an opinion. Sorry.

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.

Whether or not it is based on a religious book is irrelevant. It's declared to be immoral. That is not based on any notion of "self-preservation", particularly when that declaration of immorality ruins the lives of those you claim it is "preserving".

Even if a gay man marries a woman and has ten children, it's still considered "immoral" if he has sex with a man as well, even with his wife's permission. There is no rational basis for claiming that this has anything to do with self-preservation.

Jews believe it is wrong to eat meat with milk. Even rabbis concede that nobody knows the reason for this -- that it is one of those things you just have to accept as a commandment. There's no self-preservation involved.

The prohibition against eating pork and seafood could be traced back to a time of no refrigeration and poor sanitation, and thus have a self-preservation basis. But those no longer apply, yet the rules have not been lifted.

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.

Sorry, but from where I sit, you've defined "morality is based on self-preservation" to be true by trying to find ways to make counter-examples fit where they really don't. If you define your premise true, then it can be your conclusion, but it won't be anyone else's.

Perhaps the best example is one you haven't addressed -- older men marrying very young women. This actually makes sense from a biological perspective, and so would represent "self-preservation" reasonably -- but it is usually consider immoral in modern society.

 

[Retro Rob]

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.

Well, how do you know the writers initial intent?

Have you studied it and determined the intent yourself to point out where I am wrong?

Actually, I really would like to know how you determine whether folks like myself are wrong.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

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

Oh, okay.

Here's some scripture. Please "interpret" it for us so it can be seen as "moral".

31:3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
31:4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
31:5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
31:11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
31:12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
31:13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

[Mursilis]

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.

At the point he was caught, tried, and executed, it wasn't, but before that, he was maximizing his happiness (I assume - I can't imagine finding pleasure in what Ted Bundy did, but he seemed to enjoy it). The only negative, at least for him, seemed to be getting caught. Not everyone gets caught.

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

When the question, such as "What's for dinner?", is morally neutral and can have multiple options, I can accept that there can be more than one good answer. Pizza and burgers would both taste great right about now. But what about when the question is clearly either/or, such as the death penalty? Can there be more than one good answer if there are objective moral truths?

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.

But again, better and worse are subjective. Your better may not be the same as my better, and may even oppose my better. And that doesn't really address the classic utilitarian dilemma of whether we should recognize a basic "floor" of human rights. Take slavery, for example. Slavery did result in some utility to society - it freed slave owners from doing a lot of manual labor they clearly didn't want to do. But is that any sort of justification of the practice? Most of us would say no, of course not. Even if 100 people benefited by getting to live a life of leisure, that did not justify the enslavement of even 1 person.

 

[Juddog]

Well, how do you know the writers initial intent?

Have you studied it and determined the intent yourself to point out where I am wrong?

Actually, I really would like to know how you determine whether folks like myself are wrong.

If you look at the context of the old testament and the new testament, and the times during which they were written, slavery was commonplace.

I am just laughing at the fact that you're applying your own modern idea of morals (keeping in mind that slavery was only banned a few hundred years ago) to an ancient text written 2000 years ago, and saying that the ancient text meant something different than it did. Like it or not, when the bible was written, slavery was considered to be ok.

In essence, if you were to meet in real life some of the writers of the Bible, you would most likely find their ideals and behavior to be reprehensible. The people that wrote the bible, and the society they lived in, was very much like the society that Afghanistan looks like now. It was ok to stone a woman to death if the "crime" was sufficient, or rape them if the right circumstances were present, it was ok to own slaves, etc.. Why you uphold this ancient piece of garbage to such a high pedestal is beyond me; after all it's the origin of gems like this:

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.]

If you actually take time to read the Bible without the rose colored glasses, you'd see that such things are commonplace. I have more respect for the piece of toilet paper that I use to wipe my ass with, after I take a big fat sh!t, than I do this historic piece of fantasy that you put in such high regard.

 

[Retro Rob]

If you actually take time to read the Bible without the rose colored glasses, you'd see that such things are commonplace. I have more respect for the piece of toilet paper that I use to wipe my ass with, after I take a big fat sh!t, than I do this historic piece of fantasy that you put in such high regard.

Ah, David's punishment for his fornication and murder. I am more than familiar with this account.

At least, I commend you for establishing context to form your opinion.

I know we won't ever change each other's minds, though.

That's fine with me.

 

[BoberFett]

Is this how you "save face" 😉

Eating paint chips again?

 

[Juddog]

Ah, David's punishment for his fornication and murder. I am more than familiar with this account.

At least, I commend you for establishing context to form your opinion.

I know we won't ever change each other's minds, though.

That's fine with me.

Typical position of a theist - just stick your head in the sand and pretend the world outside you is not really happening.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Well? We await your wisdom.

Here's some scripture. Please "interpret" it for us so it can be seen as "moral".

31:3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
31:4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
31:5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
31:11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
31:12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
31:13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

[skyking]

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?

That is a question I cannot honestly answer without some further study. So far I have spent 3 hours reading, watching, listening to talks about all of that. Time to get some work done 😛

 

[Retro Rob]

Well? We await your wisdom.

Here's some scripture. Please "interpret" it for us so it can be seen as "moral".

You want me to prove these are "moral" passages? Here's the short, simplest answer:

These were directlves from God himself. As far as Israel was concerned, they listened to God, and if he said to do it, they trusted His judgement over their own.

Whether this is moral or not in your eyes (since this is what this is about anyway) doesn't matter, honestly. You're holding God to your standard of morality.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Whether this is moral or not in your eyes (since this is what this is about anyway) doesn't matter, honestly. You're holding God to your standard of morality.

That boils down to "do as I say, not as I do". Even a five-year-old can see through that level of hypocrisy.

You are saying that your God, whom I'm supposed to bow down and pray to and respect as being the source of all life and the knower of all things and someone who is "holy", believed it was morally acceptable to slaughter thousands of older women and young boys, and then take the young girls and force them to be concubines to strangers.

Now perhaps you know why, when you say that the bible can "teach morality", people say their own morality is superior.

Because it is.

 

[sandorski]

You want me to prove these are "moral" passages? Here's the short, simplest answer:

These were directlves from God himself. As far as Israel was concerned, they listened to God, and if he said to do it, they trusted His judgement over their own.

Whether this is moral or not in your eyes (since this is what this is about anyway) doesn't matter, honestly. You're holding God to your standard of morality.

Do You find them Moral?

 

[HumblePie]

Charles,

Okay, let's start from the beginning shall we?

What is morality at it's basic concept? The act of defining behaviors as either "good" or "bad" or in many cases "neither." Which is moral, immoral, and amoral. ALL behaviors fall into one of those 3 categories. That's how categories work. This is basic concept, are you still with me?

The supposition is that all behaviors done fall into 1 of 3 categories. Well, how does one define what category a behavior fits into? Largely, that is up to the individual doing the action, but in a society individual moral codes can be influenced and changed to meet the needs of a society.

A person that grew up on his own, living without any form of society would have vastly different moral codes than "civilized" humans. In fact, the person that grows up completely isolated would probably not think of anything beyond survival and wouldn't think of things in terms of "good" or "bad" at all. It would be just what it is. Any action that furthers self preservation would be seen as good and any action that doesn't would be seen as something not to do (but not actually bad by the isolated person).

Just like you don't consider it immoral when watching a nature TV channel to see 2 lion seals kill each other over a mate. That death is not considered immoral to you, me, or the seals. It's seen as an act of survival. Both for the individual and for the species.

Moral ideas don't come into existence until 2 people, once isolated, decide to work together for mutual prosperity. Each person's individual actions for survival up until then may have been perfectly right. For example, taking of what you want/need for survival. When two people cooperate, then the taking instead of sharing is no longer viewed as a good thing to mutual prosperity and survival. Thus the act of theft is deemed immoral, and the act of sharing with your neighbor is seen as moral.

However, human society has expanded much beyond 2 people or even a small group of people working together. The more people working together in a society, the more behaviors need to be monitored for various reasons. 1 person defecating in a stream that is the town's water supply won't do much. Much greater number of people doing it will start causing problems.

Still, if human's had always been perfectly rational individuals, much of what we have for moral codes would not be dissimilar or hard to understand. But humans aren't. They change their behavior and moral codes based off imaginary things all the time. Humans make "leaps of logic" over many things. A prominent figure of a society gets sick eating a lobster or crab. Mainly because they are having an allergic reaction. Before humans knew what an allergic reaction was, they would still try to figure out WHY they got sick. Not knowing the exact reasons, many would conjure what they felt was best. They got sick because crabs and lobsters are an abomination. They are evil. Thus it is immoral to them and those that believe them to eat shell fish. It was evil, because they almost died, or knew someone that had died from eating it. Then when the prominent person saw that making the eating of shellfish immoral, then they would see a decline in sickness or fatalities from people eating it. They would feel their decisions was right and vindicated.

Same set of logic steps can be applied to any moral code ever developed in human society. A behavior gets labeled moral, immoral, or amoral by a society based on their experiences with the outcome of said behavior in regards to self preservation of their society and individuals. Much of the labeling ends up being codified in some way eventually.

The big problem is when it comes to tradition and habit. Humans tend to keep things that they think work and have a hard time of changing. In a village that everyone is typically allergic to shellfish, then making it immoral to eat shellfish isn't a big deal at all. But in a larger society which may now include coastal towns where the main staple of food is now mostly shell fish, then making it immoral isn't as easy a thing to do. Which has led into problems of one segment of society feeling as if they need to inflict their moral codes on another segment of human society. Because they don't want to re-examine the reasons for their original moral codes being developed.

And Charles, you have not flung any example my way that can not be explained to have a root going back to self preservation of either an individual or group of individuals.

 

[IronWing]

Whether this is moral or not in your eyes (since this is what this is about anyway) doesn't matter, honestly. You're holding God to your standard of morality.

My moral standard is the only one that counts, to me. By my moral standard, the god described in the bible is utterly immoral.

Does the behavior ascribed to the god of the bible meet your standard of moral conduct?

 

[Retro Rob]

Do You find them Moral?

Quite frankly, those accounts are not about morality, as they are about justice.

Death row inmmates picture this perfectly. It's justice being metted out, because in my eyes, unjustified death is immoral.

If God feel it's justified, then that's a decision He makes. Oh, and please don't forget the accounts where He showed mercy to people as well, even those who killed others (Manesseh and David comes to mind, both in the OT as well) and deserved death.

Don't forget to cherry pick those as well.

 

[Retro Rob]

My moral standard is the only one that counts, to me. By my moral standard, the god described in the bible is utterly immoral.

Does the behavior ascribed to the god of the bible meet your standard of moral conduct?

Because you don't read anything other than the parts that fit your opinion. For the many so-called immoral acts, there are plenty in which people and whole nations were spared (the Ninevites in the book of Jonah comes to mind -- God spared a violent and cruel people becasue they were repentant).

This makes him a balanced God. He shows mercy where it's due, delivers justice where its due.

Your point has no merit.

 

[sandorski]

Quite frankly, those accounts are not about morality, as they are about justice.

Death row inmmates picture this perfectly. It's justice being metted out, because in my eyes, unjustified death is immoral.

If God feel it's justified, then that's a decision He makes. Oh, and please don't forget the accounts where He showed mercy to people as well, even those who killed others (Manesseh and David comes to mind, both in the OT as well) and deserved death.

Don't forget to cherry pick those as well.

Justice? What kind of "justice" is that?

That's they type of fail thinking that people use to justify Hitler's actions. I'm sure he was Merciful and had good qualitiies about him too. So he killed millions, he must have had a good reason?

 

[sandorski]

Because you don't read anything other than the parts that fit your opinion. For the many so-called immoral acts, there are plenty in which people and whole nations were spared (the Ninevites in the book of Jonah comes to mind -- God spared a violent and cruel people becasue they were repentant).

This makes him a balanced God. He shows mercy where it's due, delivers justice where its due.

Your point has no merit.

Really? 🙄

 

[Retro Rob]

Justice? What kind of "justice" is that?

That's they type of fail thinking that people use to justify Hitler's actions. I'm sure he was Merciful and had good qualitiies about him too. So he killed millions, he must have had a good reason?

This shows your ignorance. You can't form a better argument than comparing (falsely, btw) man with God? I know you can't come up with anything better, but this is just silly.

Doesn't require a response.

 

[sandorski]

This shows your ignorance. You can't form a better arguemnt that comparing (falsely, btw) comparing man with God?

Doesn't require a response.

What a cop out. Man is clearly superior to the Bible's concept of "god".

What I find amusing here is how I, supposedly, can't compare Man to God, yet You seem perfectly fine comparing the Bible God with other gods.

 

[Retro Rob]

What I find amusing here is how I, supposedly, can't compare Man to God, yet You seem perfectly fine comparing the Bible God with other gods.

Where have I compared the Bible's God to other gods?

and if you're going to make a comparison, it has be equal. Man and God are fundamentally not equal, so the comparison is shot down before it's even made.

You can compare Hitler to religious crusaders all you want. That's an equal comparision.

 

[sandorski]

Where have I compared the Bible's God to other gods?

and if you're going to make a comparison, it has be equal. Man and God are fundamentally not equal, so the comparison is shot down before it's even made.

You can compare Hitler to religious crusaders all you want. That's an equal comparision.

You claimed that "God is a balanced god". If that's not comparing gods, then explain it.

Have any evidence that Man/God are fundamentally unequal?

I will compare whatever is comparable. "God" being a mass murdering genocidal maniac compares to Hitler just fine. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Quite frankly, those accounts are not about morality, as they are about justice.

Justice without morality is not justice.

How is it justice to murder boys and rape girls?

It's justice being metted out, because in my eyes, unjustified death is immoral.

So, this leaves you with two (rational) choices:

1. Decide that the scripture I quoted portrays immorality; or
2. Decide that murdering thousands of innocent people because of the actions of their leaders is "justified".

Which is it?

If God feel it's justified, then that's a decision He makes.

What you're saying here is that your god can take acts you yourself believe to be immoral, but you're okay with it because he's allowed to. And why is he allowed to? Because he wants to.

You expect any sane person to see this as a valid moral code?

Oh, and please don't forget the accounts where He showed mercy to people as well, even those who killed others (Manesseh and David comes to mind, both in the OT as well) and deserved death.

So your god is to be given "credit" for occasionally being just, and this wipes out all of his injustices? Saving two people from death justifies murdering tens of thousands?

Quite the moral holy book you have there.

Because you don't read anything other than the parts that fit your opinion. For the many so-called immoral acts, there are plenty in which people and whole nations were spared (the Ninevites in the book of Jonah comes to mind -- God spared a violent and cruel people becasue they were repentant).

Who says they were "violent and cruel"? The word used is "wickedness", which could mean anything.

In fact, in the context of the OT, it could well be that their "wickedness" was less than the examples I already provided of God doing. So who says his decision to destroy Nineveh was justified in the first place?

HumblePie: Will address your post later.

 

[Retro Rob]

You claimed that "God is a balanced god". If that's not comparing gods, then explain it.

It means God delivers both justice and mercy, making him balance. He's not all justice, not all mercy. He has both.

Have any evidence that Man/God are fundamentally unequal?

God created man. Simple.

I will compare whatever is comparable. "God" being a mass murdering genocidal maniac compares to Hitler just fine. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Is it ok if I compare your mental capacity to that of a 3 year old? Sorry for the inconvenience, I will compare whatever is comparable.