Morals Without God

[bhanson]

But if you're scared of contractually-stated consequences, then you're not sure of getting away with it.

Please answer my original question. If you could get away with it, would you steal from someone? Yes or no.

It's not a matter of being scared of contractually-stated consequences. You respect the social contract because it is what holds order in society and because it is in most casts mutually beneficial.

I do not think your question accepts a yes or no answer. There are cases where it is definitely moral to steal and cases where it is clearly not. You cannot answer such a broad question with a yes or no answer.

 

[daishi5]

It's not a matter of being scared of contractually-stated consequences. You respect the social contract because it is what holds order in society and because it is in most casts mutually beneficial.

I do not think your question accepts a yes or no answer. There are cases where it is definitely moral to steal and cases where it is clearly not. You cannot answer such a broad question with a yes or no answer.

Who determines when it is definitely moral to steal? Do we have someone we can ask, or do we have a test we can use to objectively determine the morality of stealing in a certain situation?

 

[HumblePie]

Who determines when it is definitely moral to steal? Do we have someone we can ask, or do we have a test we can use to objectively determine the morality of stealing in a certain situation?

Yep, there are plenty of scenarios where stealing would be moral. What is the definition of stealing? To take possession of another person's property without their consent. Their knowledge of the lost property at the time it is taken doesn't matter, so long as consent is not given. So how can a scenario of stealing be a moral one?

Let me use an example real quick. This is a purely hypothetical situation, but it's point is for demonstration purposes. Say I'm walking down the street and see someone pass out on the sidewalk. That person is going into diabetic shot and is dying. I see a car parked nearby and on the passenger seat is a box of insulin shots. I break in the car, grab the insulin and save the person's life.

Was I morally obligated to steal the insulin to save someone else? Damn right I was. Even if I replace what I took and payed for any damages (or the person I saved does) the point of fact is that I STOLE something. I took something without consent. According to many religious ideologies I've sinned and am now going to be eternally damned. This is why morals can't be preached. They must be assessed logically.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Would you steal from someone if you could get away with it? Yes or no.

No. I can't get away from myself.

 

[bhanson]

Who determines when it is definitely moral to steal? Do we have someone we can ask, or do we have a test we can use to objectively determine the morality of stealing in a certain situation?

It's not a matter of who we can ask, because there is no creator of all or higher authority to determine how we should live our lives.

The cases in which it is definitely moral to steal are numerous and infinite.

I do not think there is a test to definitively determine the correct answer for any situation. In most cases the situation will be complex enough to prevent such a diagnosis.

I do think there is a simple test to get a good idea about the morality of an action, however.

"Would this action, if taken by all work in the improvement of our social contract, or to its determent?"

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

"Would this action, if taken by all work in the improvement of our social contract, or to its determent?"

Who decides which things are "improvements" and which are "detriments"?

 

[Mursilis]

I do think there is a simple test to get a good idea about the morality of an action, however.

"Would this action, if taken by all work in the improvement of our social contract, or to its determent?"

Why's that even relevant? How does improving the outcomes of the social contract for others help me? You're just pre-supposing some sense of altruism, when history suggests selfishness is more universal.

 

[Mursilis]

Who decides which things are "improvements" and which are "detriments"?

This as well.

 

[daishi5]

Yep, there are plenty of scenarios where stealing would be moral. What is the definition of stealing? To take possession of another person's property without their consent. Their knowledge of the lost property at the time it is taken doesn't matter, so long as consent is not given. So how can a scenario of stealing be a moral one?

Let me use an example real quick. This is a purely hypothetical situation, but it's point is for demonstration purposes. Say I'm walking down the street and see someone pass out on the sidewalk. That person is going into diabetic shot and is dying. I see a car parked nearby and on the passenger seat is a box of insulin shots. I break in the car, grab the insulin and save the person's life.

Was I morally obligated to steal the insulin to save someone else? Damn right I was. Even if I replace what I took and payed for any damages (or the person I saved does) the point of fact is that I STOLE something. I took something without consent. According to many religious ideologies I've sinned and am now going to be eternally damned. This is why morals can't be preached. They must be assessed logically.

I say you were morally wrong in your example. Can you determine which one of us is correct?

 

[Mursilis]

No. I can't get away from myself.

But you can certainly lie to yourself easily enough. Most of us do.

 

[Mursilis]

Was I morally obligated to steal the insulin to save someone else? Damn right I was.

Because? Because you say so?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

But you can certainly lie to yourself easily enough. Most of us do.

Cool story bro! :thumbsup:

 

[bhanson]

Who decides which things are "improvements" and which are "detriments"?

There is no "who" to decide because there is no master authority.

I think it is most important for an individual to act in good faith to what they believe are improvements and detriments. That is the basis for the social contract anyway.

 

[Atreus21]

It's not a matter of being scared of contractually-stated consequences. You respect the social contract because it is what holds order in society and because it is in most casts mutually beneficial.

I do not think your question accepts a yes or no answer. There are cases where it is definitely moral to steal and cases where it is clearly not. You cannot answer such a broad question with a yes or no answer.

You can't? I certainly can. I hope most people can respond to the question "Would you steal from someone if you could get away with it" with, "No, I wouldn't."

 

[daishi5]

It's not a matter of who we can ask, because there is no creator of all or higher authority to determine how we should live our lives.

The cases in which it is definitely moral to steal are numerous and infinite.

I do not think there is a test to definitively determine the correct answer for any situation. In most cases the situation will be complex enough to prevent such a diagnosis.

I do think there is a simple test to get a good idea about the morality of an action, however.

"Would this action, if taken by all work in the improvement of our social contract, or to its determent?"

I do not believe that improving the social contract is good or moral. Can you prove that I am wrong, do you have some form of objective or logical proof that does not "beg the question?" http://begthequestion.info/ You may wish to look up "beg the question" before you reply.

 

[bhanson]

Why's that even relevant? How does improving the outcomes of the social contract for others help me? You're just pre-supposing some sense of altruism, when history suggests selfishness is more universal.

It's closer to selfishness than altruism.

By violating the social contract you're violating the agreement between man that was the basis for any order. Without the contract mind you, there is nothing to stop people from killing and pillaging each other for self benefit. The entire idea behind the contract is that agreeing to give up complete freedom is beneficial to all parties involved.

Killing someone could benefit you. Before the social contract you would simply kill them and reap the benefits. But as evolution occurred the thought process expanded to, "well crap, what if someone kills me?" This eventually turned into a discussion where more than one person agreed that they should not kill each other, regardless of immediate benefit because it is mutually beneficial to not have to worry about being killed by each other.

When the next situation came up where someone involved in the social contract could kill someone else for personal benefit, they opt not to because respecting the social contract is more beneficial. This is not altruism.

So yes, the social contract is indeed bred by selfishness, but respecting what's best of the social contract is requisite for being part of it.

 

[shira]

Wow. What naive drivel. And you think Soccerballtux lacks imagination? Are you really going to pretend we can't prosper financially and in other ways at the expense of others as well (that is, in potentially immoral ways)? Look at Wall Street! Mutual self interest is a pretty theory, but woefully unrealistic. Some resources really are finite (such as beautiful young women, something you brought up), and if three guys are trying to win the heart of one woman, there is no result which will leave all parties fully satisfied.

And of course it's naive to think we all want the same things (such as your example, close loving relationships), or that these things all feel good to us all. Look at history - power and violence feel quite good to a lot of men! What did Nietzsche say? "What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome."

Acting morally doesn't guarantee you a good outcome in any particular situation. But if three men are competing for the same woman, it's damn sure that if one of them rapes her he's not going to win her heart.

Society - from long experience - recognizes which behaviors lead to the common good and which are destructive. And our body of law evolves from that understanding. Do you think that insider trading laws are defined in the old testament or that Jesus preached about them from the mount?

No, morality and ethics are based on the accumulated experience of individuals and society. I'm an agnostic atheist and I'll put my morality up against any believer's. Insisting the God is needed to tell us how to behave is just a fairy tale.

And let me point out: Muslim militants are just as self-righteous about the "goodness" of their actions as any born-again Christian. They point to their holy book, are just as certain, and seek to do the will of their God - just as you do. Somehow, though, you claim that your "certainty" about God indicates truth and goodness, but the certainty of those militants is erroneous. Why don't you explain to us how you're able to determine that YOUR certainty is the right one, given the complete symmetry of your justifications with those of militant Muslims? Does God use a special password when he whispers in your ear?

This ought to be good.

 

[bhanson]

You can't? I certainly can. I hope most people can respond to the question "Would you steal from someone if you could get away with it" with, "No, I wouldn't."

Lets visit the example HumblePie brought up earlier.

Yep, there are plenty of scenarios where stealing would be moral. What is the definition of stealing? To take possession of another person's property without their consent. Their knowledge of the lost property at the time it is taken doesn't matter, so long as consent is not given. So how can a scenario of stealing be a moral one?

Let me use an example real quick. This is a purely hypothetical situation, but it's point is for demonstration purposes. Say I'm walking down the street and see someone pass out on the sidewalk. That person is going into diabetic shot and is dying. I see a car parked nearby and on the passenger seat is a box of insulin shots. I break in the car, grab the insulin and save the person's life.

Was I morally obligated to steal the insulin to save someone else? Damn right I was. Even if I replace what I took and payed for any damages (or the person I saved does) the point of fact is that I STOLE something. I took something without consent. According to many religious ideologies I've sinned and am now going to be eternally damned. This is why morals can't be preached. They must be assessed logically.

Are you saying that if given the choice between letting someone die and stealing an insulin shot from someone's car that you would let them die?

Lets reverse the situation and say it is your car. Would you be okay with someone stealing an extra insulin shot from your car to save someone's life? I would, and I think if you ask most people they would be too.

 

[Mursilis]

They point to their holy book, are just as certain, and seek to do the will of their God - just as you do. Somehow, though, you claim that your "certainty" about God indicates truth and goodness, but the certainty of those militants is erroneous. Why don't you explain to us how you're able to determine that YOUR certainty is the right one, given the complete symmetry of your justifications with those of militant Muslims? Does God use a special password when he whispers in your ear?

This ought to be good.

Please point to the post where I've claimed any of that. I'll be waiting.

 

[daishi5]

Lets visit the example HumblePie brought up earlier.

Are you saying that if given the choice between letting someone die and stealing an insulin shot from someone's car that you would let them die?

Lets reverse the situation and say it is your car. Would you be okay with someone stealing an extra insulin shot from your car to save someone's life? I would, and I think if you ask most people they would be too.

No, I don't think it is ok to steal from someone to save someones life, and I would be upset if you stole from me. Can you prove that my choices are not moral?

 

[Mursilis]

It's closer to selfishness than altruism.

By violating the social contract you're violating the agreement between man that was the basis for any order. Without the contract mind you, there is nothing to stop people from killing and pillaging each other for self benefit. The entire idea behind the contract is that agreeing to give up complete freedom is beneficial to all parties involved.

Killing someone could benefit you. Before the social contract you would simply kill them and reap the benefits. But as evolution occurred the thought process expanded to, "well crap, what if someone kills me?" This eventually turned into a discussion where more than one person agreed that they should not kill each other, regardless of immediate benefit because it is mutually beneficial to not have to worry about being killed by each other.

When the next situation came up where someone involved in the social contract could kill someone else for personal benefit, they opt not to because respecting the social contract is more beneficial. This is not altruism.

Yet we still have murder, and plenty of it.

But as I've already pointed out, what's truly optimal is merely that everyone else respects the social contract, and I can do what I want, right? Look at Bernie Madoff, for example. He stole billions via fraud - surely that's a violation of the social contract we can all agree on. But until he was caught (nearly 30 years after he began stealing), it worked out quite well for him - he lived in the height of luxury, was well-respected in his field (president of the NYSE), and was even admired as a philanthropist. Sure, he's in prison now, but he reaped rewards for a long period of time. Most of Wall Street never even goes to jail for similar crimes. Who's faced charges for the mortgage meltdown?

 

[Mursilis]

Are you saying that if given the choice between letting someone die and stealing an insulin shot from someone's car that you would let them die?

Lets reverse the situation and say it is your car. Would you be okay with someone stealing an extra insulin shot from your car to save someone's life? I would, and I think if you ask most people they would be too.

But what if the person you were saving was a pedophile on his way to rape and kill a child? Is saving his life still the more moral choice?

We could play these silly hypothetical games all day.

 

[shira]

Please point to the post where I've claimed any of that. I'll be waiting.

You don't get it: You claim that morality comes from God. But how, exactly, does one determine what God's morality is?

You seem to think that atheists have no reason to do what's right; that only believers have such motivations. You imply that slavishly following what God tells you is the only way to be good. But you overlook the fact that God doesn't tell you anything. Your woefully error-prone human brain filters everything out there. The very fact that different religions justify different behaviors as "the good," and those behaviors CHANGE over time, PROVES that religion (and God) are clueless.

Do think that God in the 11th century AD was lying to his followers when Pope Gregory VII concluded that holy war and violence were justified, leading to 200 years of bloody crusades? Or were those true believers merely confused? Did God lie to slaveholders in ancient times or in the 19th century South, or were those true believers merely confused?

You see, you can't get around it: Across the ages, true believers have done horrible things, and believed they were being moral. God's voice is apparently not very easy to hear. Yet you claim that NOW only those who believe can be moral. Can you not see the contradiction?

 

[HumblePie]

No, I don't think it is ok to steal from someone to save someones life, and I would be upset if you stole from me. Can you prove that my choices are not moral?

Daishi, I have a huge book of case studies on morals and ethics as I took a few courses on the matter. The whole point being is that morals and ethics are not always a simple answer. They are not always black and white.

If for example someone is trying to kill you and you have the means to stop them, but that results in them dying as well. Either way you are killing someone. Either that someone is yourself or the other person. There is a whole host of moral dilemmas out there that have no right or wrong answer. Each must be evaluated on their own merit to decide WHICH is the most moral route to take. Even then, not everyone will agree which route is more moral as that is entirely based upon the experience, views, culture, and other factors that influence a person. Even people with the same religious background can differ widely on what they consider the most moral route to take in a moral dilemma.

The moral dilemma example was something I thought up on the fly. If you want to be serious about this then go read some real case studies of stuff that has happened in real life.

 

[Mursilis]

You don't get it: You claim that morality comes from God. But how, exactly, does one determine what God's morality is?

Apparently, you're slow enough that I have to ask twice - point to the post where I said morality comes from God.