Moral beliefs

[jay55]

Gary, I am absolutely not saying that. But you believe life starts at conception, that's a Christian point of view. Roeder was upholding his extreme belief in Christian ideologies.

Are you kidding? Life does start at conception. This is reality. And you refer to it as an extreme belief? You are really showing your ignorance here. That being said, there are many in this world who might say that a fetus or unborn baby is not 'really' a person/baby/human but that is only because they want to be able to justify snuffing that life out so that it does not end up inconveniencing them. But, they cannot deny it is a life or suggest that life has not yet started. I have seen babies born at 5 months and 6 months of age (even earlier actually). Would it be ok to kill these babies after their birth or maybe even a month or two afterwards because they are an inconvenience to the mother/father - of course not because this a life. Why then can they be killed at the exact same age or even later just because they haven't yet left their mother's womb - are they not living, are they not a life?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Are you kidding? Life does start at conception. This is reality. And you refer to it as an extreme belief? You are really showing your ignorance here. That being said, there are many in this world who might say that a fetus or unborn baby is not 'really' a person/baby/human but that is only because they want to be able to justify snuffing that life out so that it does not end up inconveniencing them. But, they cannot deny it is a life or suggest that life has not yet started. I have seen babies born at 5 months and 6 months of age (even earlier actually). Would it be ok to kill these babies after their birth or maybe even a month or two afterwards because they are an inconvenience to the mother/father - of course not because this a life. Why then can they be killed at the exact same age or even later just because they haven't yet left their mother's womb - are they not living, are they not a life?

I find it interesting that a fetus is not a life if it's unwanted by the mother, but it is a life if it is taken away from the mother through the commission of a crime.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Hello everyone. I'm an atheist, and i'm very interested in human morality. I've heard many of my Christian peers claim that without God there would be no morality. They claim there would be no right or wrong without God. I cannot help but disagree.


I would like to hear what you have to say about this topic and get the discussion going.

I answered 'yes' because it is God who gave man the capacity to be a consciously moral creature that can consider the well-being of another human being.

We only care about things because God made us with that capacity to care. You can't get a chicken to consciously consider the welfare of a fellow chicken. They simply are not wired that way. But we humans are wired that way. It is because of God that we are even having this discussion. What we are ultimately debating is whether or not we want to subscribe to God's morality or our own godless definition of morality.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I find it interesting that a fetus is not a life if it's unwanted by the mother, but it is a life if it is taken away from the mother through the commission of a crime.

It is the elevation of one person's "rights," the woman's, over the rights of her unborn child to have sovereignty over what she does.

Where this mother gets the right to kill her unborn child at a whim is beyond me though.

 

[turnorburn]

i agree with Gary life does begin at conception.. there's a Psalm that fits this perfectly..

Psalm 139:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me.

2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.

3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.

4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.

5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.

6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.

7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;

10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.

12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!

18 If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.

19 Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.

20 For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.

21 Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?

22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.

23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:

24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

tob

 

[Free]

Hello everyone. I'm an atheist, and i'm very interested in human morality. I've heard many of my Christian peers claim that without God there would be no morality. They claim there would be no right or wrong without God. I cannot help but disagree.


I would like to hear what you have to say about this topic and get the discussion going.

If there was no God, all moral statements would be purely subjective and boil down to personal preference--nothing could be truly evil, there would just be things that ultimately one finds distasteful. But of course, I do believe that even atheists do, in fact, find that some things really are evil, such as the Holocaust, and this is because humans have the God-given ability to recognize the truly good and truly evil, based on an objective moral law. And this points to a transcendent lawgiver.

So from your point of view as an atheist, you cannot claim that something is truly evil or truly good without invoking the transcendent lawgiver.

 

[Jamsie]

Fossil Genera - "You at least have a concept of God," seems to imply that there is believed to be a higher state of human knowledge of God beyond concepts.

I don’t believe it requires a necessary higher state but may be at the outset innate. There are a number of books on the theory of mind’s role of religious faculty. There in fact may be some correlation with Chomsky’s Transformational Grammar in terms of innate intellectual structures and further innate intuitions.

Regardless of whether the system that holds these beliefs is true, I do not agree with the implication that human knowledge of God is beyond concepts or ideas.

This would hold true beyond the human knowledge of God, since it is obvious that human knowledge at present is still quite limited in myriad areas. I saw recently an interesting cosmological argument, though fallacious still amusing -

It is possible the universe is designed.
The universe sure looks designed to me.
ergo
It's reasonable to believe the universe is designed.

I would note that the person is quite intelligent and fully realized it’s logical shortfall. However, it was also noted that at a basic level it is quite sufficient, and quite possibly that simple. Now as far as it’s ability to persuade, no doubt some would need to call upon Aquinas, al-Ghazali, etc. and rhetorical mastery to supply a more persuasive discussion. I’ve never seen where such ideas and concepts are more persuasive in any direction but simply based on some form of confirmation bias.

Moral beliefs can be a thorny subject. I personally think that if there is no objective moral value overarching our existence than how can one argue against subjective relativism. Mr. Harris fails in "The Moral Landscape" and it would seem that all human attempts would fail.

 

[Deborah13]

If there was no God, all moral statements would be purely subjective and boil down to personal preference--nothing could be truly evil, there would just be things that ultimately one finds distasteful. But of course, I do believe that even atheists do, in fact, find that some things really are evil, such as the Holocaust, and this is because humans have the God-given ability to recognize the truly good and truly evil, based on an objective moral law. And this points to a transcendent lawgiver.

So from your point of view as an atheist, you cannot claim that something is truly evil or truly good without invoking the transcendent lawgiver.

I think I understand what you are saying and completely agree.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

If there was no God, all moral statements would be purely subjective and boil down to personal preference--nothing could be truly evil, there would just be things that ultimately one finds distasteful.

I don't see our local atheist here any more so since I have read Sam Harris' work I will play the devil's advocate here.

The argument is really this, that science specifically neuroscience has made lengths to demonstrate not just how the human brain operates, but also how it ought to operate in a human being. We can then make moral judgments off of the basis of these "oughts" to discover if they are beneficial or not to the person.

For instance, there are certain brain states that are more conducive to overall happiness in a healthy brain than others. Surely you find more pleasure in being helped by someone than being violently beaten. While these experiences are subjective in nature, there is an objective factor to them which is what happens with the Central Nervous system.

Also, I am sure you are able to distinguish the difference between taking an axe to piece of wood and taking an axe to a human being. Sure you carry beliefs about the worth of one being greater than the other, but you would also easily be able to distinguish that one of these has a vivid conscious experience and the other does not. Therefore, the experience of sentient beings are of primary moral importance.

But of course, I do believe that even atheists do, in fact, find that some things really are evil, such as the Holocaust, and this is because humans have the God-given ability to recognize the truly good and truly evil, based on an objective moral law.

We are all beings which have the capacity to experience vast amounts of suffering, and all of us experience suffering to some degree in our lives. To see this kind of suffering and death on a scale as was seen in the Holocaust one can easily make the judgment that the actions of the Nazi's were wrong.

Simply saying, "they recognize that some things are evil because of X," without giving a proper justification of that reason is simply a naked assertion not an argument.

And this points to a transcendent lawgiver.

This is a fallacious argument, you have assumed the conclusion in one of your premises. Begging the question as it were.

So from your point of view as an atheist, you cannot claim that something is truly evil or truly good without invoking the transcendent lawgiver.

If one accepts the premises that you have assumed to be true, which an atheist would not and therefore would disagree with the overall conclusion that you have presented.

 

[duari91]

I think people are getting Objective morals confused with Subjective morals.

Objective morals are binding regardless of opinion. Subjective morals are not. If our society decided that murder is legal, it still doesn't make it OKAY. Even if Hitler beat us in WWII, objective morals would still exist.

Here is the problem: It doesn't matter if someone claims that gravity doesn't exist. We experience gravity anyways. Those who do not believe in gravity will still experience the effects of it. Now, taking that example and using it for the moral problem is easy. Objective morals exists regardless of opinion or beliefs. Why? Because we experience them.

Here is where the fallacy and logical inconsistency resides: First of all, saying something does not exist is not proof that it does not in fact exist. Second, objective morals are consistent with everything we experience. They are here, and cannot be explained away without logical absurdity.

So, objective morals do exist. Where do they come from? The morals need an anchor point. You could say the flying spaghetti monster is the source of all morals, but the argument isn't rational. That is, we have no good reason to believe the spaghetti monster is the actual source. Instead, a simplification is needed.

An anchor is needed for Objective morals (to make them universal and binding)

Christians have an anchor, and Atheists do not. Even the most grounded Atheists will admit that Objective morals do exist (and that they have no explanation for them). Sorry, but the whole "chemicals in the brain" argument is not an anchor. It doesn't show us why hugging a child, and mutilating them with a screwdriver are different (morally).

God is a perfectly rational explanation for our experience of Objective morals. In fact, it is the most rational explanation we have. No Atheist has been able to offer a rational explanation to the contrary, despite numerous opportunities to do so(on the Academic platform). Sam Harris had the perfect opportunity when he debated Dr. Craig. In fact, Craig challenged him to offer a counter argument multiple times. Of course, the challenge went unmet.

 

[ObjMoVa]

Christians have an anchor, and Atheists do not. Even the most grounded Atheists will admit that Objective morals do exist (and that they have no explanation for them). Sorry, but the whole "chemicals in the brain" argument is not an anchor. It doesn't show us why hugging a child, and mutilating them with a screwdriver are different (morally).

1. I do believe in objective moral values (just in case nobody has "decoded" my username lol)
2. I hold that we can use logic and science alone to find the anchor for these values.
3. We can use human well-being to ground our moral values.
4. Hugging a child does nothing to reduce well-being. In fact, perhaps both people experience some bliss, thus moving them AWAY from suffering and into well being.
5. Mutilating the child clearly is not good for human well being.
6. Clearly, we can see that mutilating the child moves towards suffering, thus making it a bad thing to do.

I would further say that I love that debate, and I'm not sure how you missed the groundwork he laid out in his opening statement. He gives a perfectly rational explanation for objective moral values regarding well being.

 

[jasonc]

people are seldom if anything logical.

 

[duari91]

1. I do believe in objective moral values (just in case nobody has "decoded" my username lol)
2. I hold that we can use logic and science alone to find the anchor for these values.
3. We can use human well-being to ground our moral values.
4. Hugging a child does nothing to reduce well-being. In fact, perhaps both people experience some bliss, thus moving them AWAY from suffering and into well being.
5. Mutilating the child clearly is not good for human well being.
6. Clearly, we can see that mutilating the child moves towards suffering, thus making it a bad thing to do.

I would further say that I love that debate, and I'm not sure how you missed the groundwork he laid out in his opening statement. He gives a perfectly rational explanation for objective moral values regarding well being.

You have run into the same problem as Sam Harris.

1. Good, I have more respect for Atheists who admit the obvious, than ones who stay willingly ignorant.
2. Science can tell us how the world is, but not how it ought to be. People like Lawrence Krauss argue this, and literally get dismantled. Science is rife with assumptions, that cannot be scientifically proven.
3. The problem is that without an unchangeable anchor, using humans to ground morals will create a Subjective basis. My friend may have a different belief structure, giving me a difference ground to base my morals off of. This creates a contradiction of course. If we can't use humans as our moral anchor(because that is a Subjective basis), then that means Objective morals must come from another source. A permanent anchor that is binding regardless of human opinion.
4. According to what persons view point? You have no basis to argue against it if I tell you that you are wrong.
5. Why? Who cares? Other peoples children threaten the human race. They expend resources and are unable to return them until they have grown to their adult life. Protecting my own genetic makeup by mutilating other children is morally correct(obviously not). What basis do you have to tell me otherwise?
6. Who says suffering is bad? On what basis?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Here is the problem: It doesn't matter if someone claims that gravity doesn't exist. We experience gravity anyways. Those who do not believe in gravity will still experience the effects of it. Now, taking that example and using it for the moral problem is easy. Objective morals exists regardless of opinion or beliefs. Why? Because we experience them.

To continue playing the Devil's Advocate.

This argument has a problem, if I drop a 10 pound ball and if someone else then drops that same ball then they will both fall at the same rate. However, these two individuals can differ with regards to their moral experience as one may live a homosexual lifestyle and believe it to be perfectly moral while the other has a strong sense that it is immoral. If these moral experiences were universal in nature then this argument would be valid, but simply basing the existence of objective morality off of a person's subjective experience is simply a faulty line of reasoning.

Here is where the fallacy and logical inconsistency resides: First of all, saying something does not exist is not proof that it does not in fact exist.

The same fallacy extends to the positive argument as well, saying something does exist is not proof that it does in fact exist.

Second, objective morals are consistent with everything we experience.

Who is we? Westerners? Are you factoring in cultures that greatly differ in their moral understanding of the world? If we look throughout history there have been cultures with vastly differing moral views, indeed it is hard to say that there is one moral virtue that has been universally held throughout all time.

They are here, and cannot be explained away without logical absurdity.

Please explain.

So, objective morals do exist. Where do they come from? The morals need an anchor point. You could say the flying spaghetti monster is the source of all morals, but the argument isn't rational. That is, we have no good reason to believe the spaghetti monster is the actual source. Instead, a simplification is needed.

How is the argument not rational? You keep making these claims without justification.

An anchor is needed for Objective morals (to make them universal and binding)

Christians have an anchor, and Atheists do not. Even the most grounded Atheists will admit that Objective morals do exist (and that they have no explanation for them).

Many atheists do not hold that there are objective morals actually, there are ethical egoists, ethical emotivists, ethical relativists, ethical hedonists, ethical nihilists, etc.

Also, can you find me one prominent atheist who 1) claims that objective morals to exist and 2) says that there is no explanation for them? I often here this charge, but more often see no evidence for it. As a former atheist, I know that I never claimed such a thing nor have I ever heard it except from theists.

Sorry, but the whole "chemicals in the brain" argument is not an anchor. It doesn't show us why hugging a child, and mutilating them with a screwdriver are different (morally).

It's not just "chemicals in the brain," it is how those chemicals in the brain tie into our conscious experience where we can objectively determine that one behavior exhibits a healthy and beneficial act that produces happiness, while the other excruciating pain. These are not arbitrary observations, but deeply effect the conscious experience of these agents.

This is also what I call a "naked assertion," you've not presented an argument, you've mentioned a possible argument and then without any justification dismiss it.

God is a perfectly rational explanation for our experience of Objective morals. In fact, it is the most rational explanation we have.

Again, another naked assertion. This is not an argument, it is an assertion given without any justification with regards to it's validity.

How is it rational? What makes it the most rational? Don't you see how easy it is to poke holes in these kinds of "arguments," only those who already agree with you will find anything you have said compelling.

No Atheist has been able to offer a rational explanation to the contrary, despite numerous opportunities to do so(on the Academic platform).

Another unjustified assertion. Have you accurately presented the explanations proposed from the secular sector of Academia? Have you then offered sound and logical refutations to these ethical systems?

Sam Harris had the perfect opportunity when he debated Dr. Craig. In fact, Craig challenged him to offer a counter argument multiple times. Of course, the challenge went unmet.

Please see the above.

 

[ObjMoVa]

You have run into the same problem as Sam Harris.

1. Good, I have more respect for Atheists who admit the obvious, than ones who stay willingly ignorant.
2. Science can tell us how the world is, but not how it ought to be. People like Lawrence Krauss argue this, and literally get dismantled. Science is rife with assumptions, that cannot be scientifically proven.
3. The problem is that without an unchangeable anchor, using humans to ground morals will create a Subjective basis. My friend may have a different belief structure, giving me a difference ground to base my morals off of. This creates a contradiction of course. If we can't use humans as our moral anchor(because that is a Subjective basis), then that means Objective morals must come from another source. A permanent anchor that is binding regardless of human opinion.
4. According to what persons view point? You have no basis to argue against it if I tell you that you are wrong.
5. Why? Who cares? Other peoples children threaten the human race. They expend resources and are unable to return them until they have grown to their adult life. Protecting my own genetic makeup by mutilating other children is morally correct(obviously not). What basis do you have to tell me otherwise?
6. Who says suffering is bad? On what basis?

I am using well being to anchor moral values. That IS THE OBJECTIVE BASIS I am proposing.

Are you seriously asking who says suffering is bad? Are you incapable of grasping that suffering would be bad no matter what? Sam Harris perfectly explains how crazy that assertion is.

What if you met somebody who believed that vomiting all the time was health? What if they wanted to vomit all the time, and wanted to vomit until they die? Would you really think "well who are you to say that vomiting all the time is unhealthy"? I don't think so.

 

[reba]

5. Mutilating the child clearly is not good for human well being.

Abortion does what to the unborn baby?

 

[Deborah13]

To continue playing the Devil's Advocate.

As a former atheist, I know that I never claimed such a thing nor have I ever heard it except from theists.

I must have missed a post. I didn't realize this, sure glad to have you here.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

You have run into the same problem as Sam Harris.

1. Good, I have more respect for Atheists who admit the obvious, than ones who stay willingly ignorant.

Who says that they are "willingly" ignorant, perhaps they attempted to justify their beliefs but in failing decided that they just don't know. Is saying you don't know not worthy of respect?

2. Science can tell us how the world is, but not how it ought to be. People like Lawrence Krauss argue this, and literally get dismantled. Science is rife with assumptions, that cannot be scientifically proven.

This is another naked assertion.

Why can't science tell us how it ought to be? Don't we use science to tell us what ought to be in the realm of health? A doctor makes a determination on what is wrong with a patient by observing what is not functioning as it ought.

What assumptions are you referring to? Every one of your arguments are built on assumptions because you never properly justify them.

3. The problem is that without an unchangeable anchor, using humans to ground morals will create a Subjective basis.

Where did ObjMoVa say that this anchor would change?

My friend may have a different belief structure, giving me a difference ground to base my morals off of. This creates a contradiction of course. If we can't use humans as our moral anchor(because that is a Subjective basis), then that means Objective morals must come from another source. A permanent anchor that is binding regardless of human opinion.

This demonstrates you don't understand Sam Harris' argument at all. It is grounded on human well-being, not the collective opinion of humans about the existence of specific moral virtues.

4. According to what persons view point? You have no basis to argue against it if I tell you that you are wrong.

This isn't opinion, hugs are objectively beneficial.

• Reduces the risk of heart disease.
• Lowers blood pressure.
• Releases the ‘feel-good’ hormone oxytocin.
• Lowers stress and anxiety.
• Increases sexual desire. Regular sex is not only fun, but a key component to mental and physical health. Sex helps the body battle germs, promotes deeper sleep, and improves mood.
• Boosts memory.
• Improves communication.
• Encourages a positive disposition.[1]

5. Why? Who cares? Other peoples children threaten the human race. They expend resources and are unable to return them until they have grown to their adult life. Protecting my own genetic makeup by mutilating other children is morally correct(obviously not). What basis do you have to tell me otherwise?

Humans care deeply about their conscious experience, and instinctively care deeply about their children in particular. To torture a child causes long term pschological damage in addition to the initial suffering which makes this person likely to die or be mentally disturbed later in life.

6. Who says suffering is bad? On what basis?

I find this to be a rather ridiculous point. If you were to be strapped down and tortured, I think you would be quite aware of how terrible suffering is. As Sam Harris would say, "Once again, we have hit philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question."

[1] http://cafetruth.com/articles/8-health-benefits-of-cuddling/

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I must have missed a post. I didn't realize this, sure glad to have you here.

Yeah, while I certainly don't agree with much of Sam Harris' beliefs, I think his arguments in Moral Landscape have some actual strength to them.

I definitely am not an athiest, and do not think that it concludes with the idea that we 1) don't need God, or 2) proves God doesn't exist.

I also like to play the devil's advocate as it helps Christians refine their arguments so that they aren't simply dismissed. To be able to look at our own arguments with an outside perspective is an invaluable skill.

 

[Deborah13]

Yeah, while I certainly don't agree with much of Sam Harris' beliefs, I think his arguments in Moral Landscape have some actual strength to them.

I definitely am not an athiest, and do not think that it concludes with the idea that we 1) don't need God, or 2) proves God doesn't exist.

I also like to play the devil's advocate as it helps Christians refine their arguments so that they aren't simply dismissed. To be able to look at our own arguments with an outside perspective is an invaluable skill.

Well, I'm certainly learning some things. Thank you.