Should we, as many theists would tell you, not have any morals? Should we adopt a logical, utilitarian view? My morality tends to vacillate and I consider myself a hypocrite most of the time. I try to adopt a “do unto others as you would have done to yourself” but even that doesn’t work. I’ve heard arguments you should “do unto others what they would have done to themselves” which I find impossibly difficult to follow. What are your opinions, I’m curious to know?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Great , well there is a moral philosophy and an explanation about how humans get a morals depending on the relationship with the nature that's an anthropological view .. But morals are more natural than you think and we always developing our morals for example in the pervious century slavery was exist in many countries and black people had no rights to vote even after slavery finished because the black people weren't seen as a normal human beings , And I just mentioned about the previous century the religion had been exist for thousands of years why the slavery wasn't forbidden + women prosecution for long time ago ?! Why we starting to believe in rights and humanity after the Renaissance and modern movement which build on the philosophers not a monk or any religious leaders , Of course religious leaders reacting with a changes to save their doctrine and some of them are really great like Martin Luther and others .. But the changes are more deep and when you read about the philosophers you will see they actually the heart of the civilization like Immanuel Kant , Hegel , William James , Voltaire etc Modern age wouldn't be nothing without them .. I recommend to you this video a about Justice was in Harvard university is really amazing explanation , Hope you like it ... https://youtu.be/kBdfcR-8hEY
OP: How should we define our morals?
SHORT ANSWER: With our actions! Logical, pragmatic and utilitarian works for me. This allows one the flexibility to travel and understand morality is a cultural and sometimes sub-cultural phenomena that serves as a bonding agent for groups of people. If you tug at that bond in many situations, you are going to get your little hand swatted.
My morals come from treating people how I want to be treated, and society.
Yes our morals are subjective, not objective as theist try to claim.
Edit
I got my morals from Isaac Asimov and his Three Laws of Robotics.
Will this action, or its inaction, cause harm to another?
Of course, harm becomes subjective to me. But that is the way of all morality.
Then there are My Ten Commandments of Humanity
rmfr
I find it troubling to decide if ALL morals are strictly subjective. Hear me out, but if let’s say morals are purely subjective, then I can’t say to another person “what you’re doing is wrong” because they have their own subjective morals. I would just be forcing my moral compass onto them. If, say, murder is considered subjectively wrong to a sufficient number of people, does that make it quasi-objective? Or does that not give it value, as many people believe women should be subjugated in the Middle East. My point is, can morals be “proven” true? Effective? Valuable? Do you do it through philosophy, reason, or data? How does one make others follow your subjective morals?
"I can’t say to another person “what you’re doing is wrong”"
You could always claim a deity told you their morals were wrong, that seems to work for some people, because they think their opinions on morality are then magically objective.
The idea of subjective morality may scare some people, but that doesn't change the fact that we make subjective decisions about morality all the time. The things we generally agree are immoral, are actions that are obviously pernicious. .
You hit the nail on the head. Pay attention to what you said. "Show me ONE objective moral." They do not exist.
"let’s say morals are purely subjective, then I can’t say to another person “what you’re doing is wrong” because they have their own subjective morals."
This is your mistake. Morality occurs within a social structure. Within any social structure there are "Absolute Morals." Think of a social structure like a game. There are rules for every game just as there are rules for any culture or society. Typically we can break some of the smaller rules without a penalty or perhaps just pissing off the people around us/ Violate one of the main rules and you will be kicked out of the game. These rules are Absolute. They are absolute because we have agreed on them.
Murder is wrong. Yes, in the game of civilized society, unless of course someone is threatening your life and then there is an exception. Rules tell us what the objective morality is within any situation. War is murder and it is okay to kill the enemy. Now days we have civilized way, that's what the news wants you to think but it is not the reality.
To know the morality you must know the game. The Christian game is Religion, God and Salvation and they want you to play their game. Just because you say NO does not mean you are not playing another game/
There is no morality outside the context of a game.
That’s an interesting analogy, of perhaps I should say reality. To me, a human, morals seem oh so important. Biologically having morals means more cohesion as tribes and better chance of survival. Now it’s so ingrained in our code that we constantly seek confirmation that we are doing the right thing. Guilt, regret, shame only exist to negatively reinforce our moral values. I feel that having morals is almost not natural, incorrect. I’ve heard Nietzsche has much to say on this, though I’ve never had the chance to read his work. What I want to know is this: is having morals simply another indoctrination of sorts? It’s like I’ve been raised to care about my impact in society, and to care what others think of me, but is all of that just another lie propagated unknowingly by everyone on earth? Now I know what it’s like to feel truly forced beneath the foot of a human deity. We are essentially all living a lie every day that’s so ingrained we would look inhuman if we ever left it behind. My God! Haha, oh well.
Re: "How should we define our morals?"
Do like I do, especially on those annoying tough calls. Flip a coin. And if it is an unusually serious matter, I will usually go two out of three, just to be fair. Definitely takes a great deal of stress and headache out of making those difficult decisions.
That's the way, and don't forget if you're unhappy with the result make it best of three.
Can an atheist even live without morals? I don't think that's possible.
But theists can and do.
rmfr
@John
Do you think morals are subjective or objective?
If they are objective, provide evidence.
Objective by nature and subjective by interpretation. Like color and wavelength.
John
You can't have it both ways. If they are objective provide evidence.
Breezy: "Objective by nature and subjective by interpretation. Like color and wavelength."
And Breezy dodges again with a wrong answer. Especially the bold text. VERY POOR analogy. Actually it ain't even analogous.
Color AND its wavelength are objective. Just because you may want to call the color "red" blue, is not even a subjective interpretation. It is delusional.
One can call homicide objectively wrong. However, it is NOT objective. It is still subjective. What you may think is "objective" is just a majoritive "subjectivity" calling homicide "wrong." However, ALL majoritive subjective rules have exceptions. Cognostic's example of killing someone to protect your life.
Prove your point that morals are objective "by nature" and subjective "by interpretation." Any moral action that is "wrong" for one person, may not be so for another person. And shall always be so. However, many persons can agree that a certain moral action can be "wrong." This is what has determined our "laws."
rmfr
I almost feel as if telling you colors aren't objective is like telling you santa isn't real. So sure, red is red, and anyone who calls it blue is delusional.
Breezy: "I almost feel as if telling you colors aren't objective is like telling you santa isn't real."
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA.
***tries to reply, sees post***
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA.
O gosh, someone call 911. I think I hurt something...
***laughter continues unabated***
***hard thump in background***
Please, someone call 911...
rmfr
Re: Arakish - "***hard thump in background*** Please, someone call 911..."
.... *using rubber mallet to bang on trunk*.... Arakish!... Arakish!.. Hang in there, buddy! The botanist is on the way!.. *tugging at various limbs*.... Stay with us!... Don't go toward the light!... *stomps repeatedly on several roots*... *cranks leaf blower and directs toward upper canopy*.... Old Man! Fertilizer injection, STAT!... *notices movement in upper limbs*... Dammit, Cog! Get down from there! This is no time to be swinging around in his branches!....
@ Tin-Man
Thanks brother. Nice save.
rmfr
@ Arakish
Mate, you have no idea; as soon as TM called I hurried over, expecting to find a budding disaster, but, no, it was nut job call. Then I found the kernel of the problem, it was your hazel eyes, and your bushy eyebrows. So what can I do? So I shrubbed my shoulders and vegetated a while, then got to the root of the whole thing: you just hadn't twigged the fact that in spite of all the graft you put in, a rose is a rose by any other name. You need stamena to stay on root to victory.
@ Old Man, Tin-Man
Yeah, I laughed so hard I literally leaned back in my chair so far, I fell over backwards, thus the thumping sound. Thankfully I didn't hurt anything except my pride, maybe. That laughing fit did hit me hard, literally...
rmfr
...or like me, you are color blind! Just sayin'.
@ Idaho Mike
Hey, got any russets I can have?
Welcome to our little corner of insanity... godless heathens... no, wait... rational free thinkers. I knew I'd get right.
I am color blind also. Deuteranomaly, specifically. However, mine is actually a hue blindness and not a true color blindness.
rmfr
ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy,
There is evidence that humans just recently developed the ability to see blue and not everyone can distinguish between shades of green.
"There's Evidence Humans Didn't Actually See Blue Until Modern Times"
"Human vision is incredible - most of us are capable of seeing around 1 million colours, and yet we still don't really know if all of us perceive these colours in the same way.
But there's actually evidence that, until modern times, humans didn't actually see the colour blue."
https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-didn-t-see-the-colour-blue-until-mod...
Can you see the block of green that is different in the article?
@ Dio
"Can you see the block of green that is different in the article?"
Yeah I saw it. So what?
rmfr
arakish,
You have excellent color vision. I can't see any difference on the chart although I can see multiple shades of green in the natural world.
.
Diotrephes
Yet I am color-blind. Deuteranomaly to be exact. Greens do not bother me. It is the reds. Where you may be able to see a subtle change in "hue" between two reds, I would not. And here is an interesting fact. Persons who suffer Deuteranomaly or Deuteranopia color-blindness have a much greater chance of distinguishing camouflage than normal visioned persons. And I have actually seen this in action. Where my friends could not see other hunters due to camouflage clothing, I spotted fairly easy. Additionally, those who are Deuteranomaly or Deuteranopia color-blindness, 60-90% are also photophobic and have excellent night vision.
I know these things because I was diagnosed as Deuteranomaly at a young age and studied the hell out of it. I even took some art classes (Color Theory) so I can know what colors I am seeing as compared to how normal persons see them.
rmfr
arakish,
That's very interesting. I think that I have all of the normal abilities and capabilities so I can't imagine coping with life missing some. I know some blind people and can't imagine how I would cope without being able to see. I love being able to see all of the vibrant colors. I think I would miss that more than being able to speak.
When I was a kid my eyesight was very bad from being nearsighted. But I didn't know the difference and thought that my vision was normal. When I finally got my first pair of glasses I was simply amazed at how far and how clearly I could see. I hope your problem hasn't affected your enjoyment of life.
So,,, to you..... Tin Man is the color of a turd? That's just offensive and another reason to sign the petition to have him removed from the site. Sign the petition and your eyesight will improve. You will be able to see red again and keep your special night vision too.
Pages