Moral philosophy transplanted from Disney thread

[nafregnum]

@stahleyp was having fun over in the Disney thread, about whether you need to have a god in order to have a grounds for moral certainty between what is right and what is wrong.  I was having fun reading the back and forth the last few days, and hope I don't spoil that party by trying to start a different thread.

 

Quote

So human rights do not actually exist beyond what other humans say, right? Slavery is actually okay (or anything else) as long as a society allows it?

 

I think human rights only exist to the extent that we believe they do, much like the gods in the Discworld novels.  Kind of like money: it is only valuable if we all mostly agree that it has value.  If nobody believed in human rights, would a god step in and enforce human rights?  

 

I'm not trying to disrespect whichever god(s) forum members believe in -- philosophically I tend to agree with William James about both gods and human rights when he said:

 

"If there be any life that it is really better that we should lead, and if there be any idea which, if believed in would help us to lead that life, then it would be really better for us to believe in that idea, unless, indeed, belief in it incidentally clashed with other greater vital beliefs."

 

 

 

I think most people today would not say slavery is okay, whether they believe in gods or not.  Speaking of god and slavery:

 

I was under the impression that in the past, when almost everyone believed in a god, the situation was worse.  Each group tended to believed that god approved of their slave holding practices.  Unfortunately, very few of the gods of the past ever came out against slavery.  Greeks, Romans, Christians, Muslims, Mongols, Vikings, and quite a few more societies had gods who were either approving or silent about slavery.

 

Human rights exist as a thing because humans got together and decided to say so, not because they exist as a fact of nature.  If a god unequivocally said so, I'd like to see the chapter and verse.  I'm not aware of any universal declaration of human rights that came down from the gods, unless we are allowed to claim that anything we like was inspired by our god.   I googled "history of human rights" and found these few paragraphs:

 

http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-1/short-history.htm 

 

To bring ChatGPT into it:

 

Me: Please summarize the development of the idea of human rights.

 

ChatGPT:  The idea of human rights has developed over time through various cultural, religious, and philosophical traditions. Ancient Greek and Roman philosophy established the idea that all individuals possess inherent worth and dignity. In the Abrahamic religions, individuals are created in the image of God, and therefore have inherent value and rights.

 

The Enlightenment era emphasized the importance of individual freedom, and philosophers such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that individuals have natural rights that must be protected by the state. The American and French Revolutions further emphasized the importance of individual rights and freedoms.

 

In the 20th century, the concept of human rights was enshrined in international law with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations in 1948. This declaration recognized that all human beings are entitled to certain rights and freedoms, regardless of their race, religion, or other characteristics.

 

Since then, human rights have continued to be developed and expanded upon through international treaties and conventions, and through the work of human rights advocates and organizations. Today, the concept of human rights is a fundamental part of the global discourse on justice and equality.

 

... and on Christianity and slavery ...

 

Me: Please summarize the contribution of Christian religious thought to the practice of chattel slavery in the new world from 1493 until 1865

 

ChatGPT:

 

Christian religious thought played a complex and contradictory role in the practice of chattel slavery in the New World from 1493 until 1865. On one hand, many Christians opposed slavery and worked to abolish it, citing the belief in the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings. On the other hand, Christian religious thought was used to justify and reinforce the institution of slavery in various ways.

 

In the early years of European colonization, many Christian leaders believed that slavery could be justified as a means of converting non-Christian people to Christianity. However, as the institution of slavery became more entrenched and profitable, Christian justifications for it became increasingly strained. Some Christian leaders continued to defend slavery on biblical grounds, citing passages that appeared to support it, while others opposed it on moral and ethical grounds.

 

Despite the mixed opinions among Christian leaders, slavery became deeply intertwined with Christian religious practice in the New World. Many slave owners used Christianity to justify their ownership of human beings, while slaves themselves often used Christian beliefs and practices to resist their enslavement and assert their humanity.

 

Overall, while some Christians opposed slavery and worked to abolish it, Christian religious thought was also used to justify and reinforce the institution of chattel slavery in the New World, with lasting impacts on both the religious and social landscape of the Americas.

 

... one more ...

 

Me:  Are there any religions which were always opposed to slavery?

 

ChatGPT: 

 

There are several religions that have historically been opposed to slavery. Here are a few examples:

 

1. Jainism: Jainism is an ancient Indian religion that emphasizes non-violence and respect for all forms of life. The religion has always been opposed to slavery and other forms of exploitation.

2. Buddhism: Buddhism also originated in India and has always emphasized the importance of treating all beings with kindness and compassion. The Buddha himself spoke out against the practice of slavery.

3. Quakers: The Society of Friends, also known as Quakers, emerged in England in the 17th century and were among the first religious groups to formally oppose slavery. Quakers played an important role in the abolitionist movement in the United States and other parts of the world.

4. Baha'i Faith: The Baha'i Faith is a relatively modern religion that emerged in Iran in the 19th century. The religion emphasizes the unity of all humanity and the importance of treating all people with dignity and respect. Baha'is have always been opposed to slavery and other forms of oppression.

 

It's important to note that while these religions have been opposed to slavery, their followers have not always lived up to these ideals. Slavery and other forms of exploitation have persisted in many societies, even those where religions that oppose these practices have been present.

 

 

[rkbabang]

+1 @nafregnum.  As I said in my last post in the DIS thread.  The only way to end something you think is immoral is to convince your fellow humans to agree with you.  Slavery was opposed by a minority of people all throughout human history and no god or gods ever did anything about it.  Once it was opposed by a large enough number of humans  it ended.  That is the only way progress in human rights is ever made, one human mind at a time.  Zeus isn't going to strike anyone down with a lightning bolt and Yahweh isn't going to smite you dead for enslaving someone.  Your neighbors who think it is wrong and will try to stop you. 

 

[DooDiligence]

"The common fallacies are usefully divided into three categories: Fallacies of Relevance, Fallacies of Unacceptable Premises, and Formal Fallacies. Many of these fallacies have Latin names, perhaps because medieval philosophers were particularly interested in informal logic. You don’t need to know the Latin names: what’s important is being able to recognize the fallacies."

 

https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/logical-and-critical-thinking/0/steps/9131

 

The straw man made an appearance before this discussion got re-threaded. He is one of my least favorite characters.

[Sweet]

@nafregnum ChatGPT missed that nearly all the abolitionists that successfully campaigned the British government to end the Atlantic slave trade, and free all slaves in the then British empire, were devout Christians.  It would be hard to talk about the ending of the Western slave trade without mentioning what motivated William Wilberforce and those like him.

 

Absent also are many complexities to this story.  The word ebed in Hebrew can mean either slave or servant, but in the English biblical translations it’s nearly always translated to slave - incorrectly perhaps.  I mention this because there is a good argument that the ebeds mentioned in the bible had a very different life from the slaves in North America.  The former being more akin to indentured servitude than the racial slavery seen in the colonies and USA.  It's hard to make direct comparisons if that’s the case.

 

Worth remembering also that it wasn’t until the invention of the printing press, language translations, and widespread literacy, that bible could even be read by anyone other than a select few.  The King James translation was only published in 1611, and it was only in the 19th Century could most people read it, meaning that until only 2-3 hundred years ago knowledge was passed along from the pulpit.  To therefore describe things as worse centuries ago is self evidently true, but to casually associate that as a result of a belief in god is not.

 

Regarding human rights and whether they are natural or god given.  I think you are a bit off in your argument.  The concept of innate natural rights isn’t always associated with god, the French Revolution which championed natural and innate human rights was atheistic.  The most important critique of that view came from Edmund Burke who was a Christian member of the British Parliament and noted conservative.  His view was that god given rights do exist, insofar as god had given people a concept of right and wrong, and an ability to reason, BUT it was the human institutions of civilisation and an inherited tradition / wisdom that delivered rights - he considered innate human rights as too abstract.
 

I don’t know much about these matters, but I know enough to suggest that it’s a lot more complex than you’ve summarised.  My own personal view is that this is one for the too hard pile.

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by Sweet

[nafregnum]

QuoteOn 3/3/2023 at 3:53 PM, stahleyp said:

 

Speaking of Adams, he also said:

 

“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

 

As we become more secular (ie less moral and religious), it'll be interesting if the US stays as is. I suspect not. 

 

 

Adding this other idea from the thread, because I agree with the kernel of concern which I would restate as "Our by-the-people form of government only works if we maintain a culture of honesty."  It's the same inside company cultures: if corrupt employees are not fired, the dishonesty spreads.

@Dave86ch has a really cool pair of essays over on his blog about the ability of ChatGPT to take in a group of writings and "interview it" by asking questions of it within that specific set of writings ... he took a 12,000 page compilation of speeches and writings from Lee Kuan Yew, the father of modern Singapore who helped the country go from a per capita income of around $400 in 1960 to over $70,000 in 2021.  It's almost eery to be able to "make friends with the eminent dead" in this way.  

https://dscompounding.com/2023/02/27/ai-and-community-consciousness-chapter-two/

 

Question: What are the qualities of a good citizen?

Answer: A good citizen is someone who is productive, strives for excellence, and is motivated to make a positive impact on their community. They should be willing to work hard to improve their own life and the lives of those around them. They should also be respectful of the law and customs of their community, and be willing to help others in need. Finally, they should be committed to making the world a better place for everyone.

Charlie Munger has a story about how corruption can take hold within the culture of a company.  We can imagine this writ large in a society too:

https://jameslau88.com/2020/05/12/charlie-munger-on-worldly-wisdom-revisited-december-29-1997/

Quote

Let’s say you have a desire to do public service. As a natural part of your planning, you think in reverse and ask, “What can I do to ruin our civilization?” That’s easy. If what you want to do is ruin your civilization, just go to the legislature and pass laws that create systems wherein people can easily cheat. It will work perfectly. 

 

Take the workers’ compensation system in California. Stress is real. And its misery can be real. So you want to compensate people for their stress in the workplace. It seems like a noble thing to do. 

 

But the trouble with such a compensation practice is that it is practically impossible to delete huge cheating. And once you reward cheating, you get crooked lawyers, crooked doctors, crooked unions, etc. participating in referral schemes. You get a total miasma of disastrous behavior. And the behavior makes all the people doing it worse as they do it. So you were trying to help your civilization. But what you did was create enormous damage, net. 

 

So it’s much better to let some things go uncompensated—to let life be hard—than to create systems that are easy to cheat. 

 

“I have a friend who made an industrial product at a plant in Texas not far from the border. He was in a low-margin, tough business. He got massive fraud in the works compensation system – to the point that his premiums reached double-digit percentage of payroll. And it was not that dangerous to produce his product. It’s not like he was a demolition contractor or something.

 

So he pleaded with the Union, “You’ve got to stop this. There is not enough money in making this product to cover all of this fraud.” 

 

But, by then, everybody does it. It can’t be that wrong. Eminent lawyers, eminent doctors, eminent chiropractors—if there are any such things—are cheating.” 

 

And no one could tell them, “You can’t do that anymore.” Incidentally, that’s Pavlovian mere association, too. When people get bad news, they hate the messenger. Therefore, it was very hard for the union representative to tell all of these people that the easy money is about to stop. That is not the way to advance as a union representative. Anyway, the human tragedy was that they couldn’t stop. 

 

So my friend closed his plant and moved the work to Utah among a community of believing Mormons. Well, the Mormons aren’t into workers’ compensation fraud – at least they aren’t in my friend’s plant. And guess what his workers compensation expense is today? It’s two percent of payroll – down from double digits.

Letting the slop run causes this sort of tragedy. You must stop slop early. It’s very hard to stop slop and moral failure if you let it run a while.”

 

 

[Guest]

Haha didn't think you were serious but I'm game.  I'll try to respond soon. Sometimes it takes a while with my crazy schedule.

 

For a very brief summary, I agree with Dostoevsky. I

 

"Without God all things are permitted."

 

Fyodor Dostoevsky

 

I'll also say that the scientific revolution was very Christian in nature. I can back that up too.

[LC]

All the philosophy you need is right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8rG_2ed1wg

 

 

[nafregnum]

3 hours ago, Sweet said:

@nafregnum ChatGPT missed that nearly all the abolitionists that successfully campaigned the British government to end the Atlantic slave trade, and free all slaves in the then British empire, were devout Christians.  It would be hard to talk about the ending of the Western slave trade without mentioning what motivated William Wilberforce and those like him.

 

Thanks for your thoughtful reply!  There's a lot to agree with here.  To be fair to ChatGPT, I think it only "missed" England because my question was only about the practice of slavery in the new world.  Here's what it says about the case of England and Christianity:

 

Quote

 

Question: Please tell me about the influence of Christian faith on the abolition of slavery in England.

Answer:  The Christian faith played a significant role in the abolition of slavery in England. Many Christians believed that slavery was a violation of the fundamental principles of Christianity and human dignity. They argued that all people were created equal in the eyes of God and that slavery went against the teachings of the Bible.

 

The movement to abolish slavery in England was led by a group of Christians known as the Clapham Sect. This group included prominent figures such as William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, and Granville Sharp. They were deeply committed to their Christian faith and believed that it was their duty to work towards the abolition of slavery.

 

Wilberforce, in particular, was instrumental in the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire. He was a member of Parliament and used his position to campaign tirelessly for the abolition of slavery. He believed that slavery was a moral evil and worked to persuade other members of Parliament to support his cause. After many years of campaigning, Wilberforce and his supporters finally succeeded in passing the Slave Trade Act of 1807, which abolished the slave trade in the British Empire.

 

However, slavery itself was not abolished until several years later, with the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. Again, Christian beliefs played a significant role in the passage of this legislation. Many Christians argued that slavery was incompatible with Christian values and that it was their duty to work towards its abolition.

 

In conclusion, the Christian faith played a significant role in the abolition of slavery in England. The Clapham Sect and other Christian activists worked tirelessly to persuade others that slavery was a moral evil and that it was their duty to work towards its abolition. Their efforts ultimately succeeded in the passage of the Slave Trade Act of 1807 and the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, which ended the slave trade and abolished slavery in the British Empire.

 

 

I think it's a wonderful thing that people of faith were there to push for abolition.  Because of the structure of 1800s English society, I doubt very much that unbelieving humanists would've had even a shred of a chance of pulling the levers of power to accomplish such a goal.  The world needs people of good will in every variety to stand together in advancing every great cause.

 

The place where I feel the evidence is a little too thin has to do with any claims that a god exists who ever unambiguously communicated anything to humans that didn't sound likely to have come from humans themselves.  I became personally convinced by books like "The Evolution of God" and "God: A Human History" that the human idea of god has gone through a good deal of shifting and changing.  Each culture seems to have created gods in their own image.  Cave dwelling people appear to have a "god of the hunt" ... Greeks had small gods over all kinds of little things, one for each town, etc.  But when they became a state with top leadership then the gods developed top leadership too, up on Olympus.  The organization of the gods appeared to reflect the same power dynamics of each civilization.  

 

Particularly troubling to me is the way the god of the Old Testament and the Koran appear to have a surprising amount of similarity with the evolved mating and dominance strategies observed in male primates.  Dominant males receive submission displays from others like avoiding eye contact or making oneself small before them -- these look like humility displays: bow the head to god or the preacher who is god's representative.  Dominant males make themselves look really big -- kings and popes wear big crowns and hats.  In Revelation 4:10 a bunch of elders lay their crowns down at the lord's feet.  A submission display.  God repeatedly tells the people to go make war on other cities and kill all the males and old ladies but take the girls and women with them.  That's text book primate male mating strategy.  For a fully detailed look at these similarities, I recommend the book "Alpha God: The Psychology of Religious Violence and Oppression."

 

Lately I've been enjoying the notion that our notion of god in each historical time and place appears to be a ChatGPT distillation of the morals and ethical standards of the people who that god ruled over.  Like a crowd-sourced idea of the ultimate leader.  

 

3 hours ago, Sweet said:

Absent also are many complexities to this story.  The word ebed in Hebrew can mean either slave or servant, but in the English biblical translations it’s nearly always translated to slave - incorrectly perhaps.  I mention this because there is a good argument that the ebeds mentioned in the bible had a very different life from the slaves in North America.  The former being more akin to indentured servitude than the racial slavery seen in the colonies and USA.  It's hard to make direct comparisons if that’s the case.

 

A pretty fair point.  Servitude and slavery are human practices that varied greatly through place and time.  There remain difficulties, like why an omnipotent all knowing being would ever give parenting tips like this:

 

Deuteronomy 21: 18 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. 20 And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.

 

I'm inclined to think that if this was the wisdom on tap for how to treat your own sons then life would have been less forgiving for those ebeds.

 

 

3 hours ago, Sweet said:

Worth remembering also that it wasn’t until the invention of the printing press, language translations, and widespread literacy, that bible could even be read by anyone other than a select few.  The King James translation was only published in 1611, and it was only in the 19th Century could most people read it, meaning that until only 2-3 hundred years ago knowledge was passed along from the pulpit.  To therefore describe things as worse centuries ago is self evidently true, but to casually associate that as a result of a belief in god is not.

 

That's fair enough.  A population that doesn't read the bible can't do better than follow the humans dressed up in the bishops robes and trust that all is according to god's grand design.  Humans believing in god typically just believe that god is on their side and hates the people they hate.  My favorite Dawkins quote: "How thoughtful of God to arrange matters so that, wherever you happen to be born, the local religion always turns out to be the true one."

 

3 hours ago, Sweet said:

Regarding human rights and whether they are natural or god given.  I think you are a bit off in your argument.  The concept of innate natural rights isn’t always associated with god, the French Revolution which championed natural and innate human rights was atheistic.  The most important critique of that view came from Edmund Burke who was a Christian member of the British Parliament and noted conservative.  His view was that god given rights do exist, insofar as god had given people a concept of right and wrong, and an ability to reason, BUT it was the human institutions of civilisation and an inherited tradition / wisdom that delivered rights - he considered innate human rights as too abstract.

 

I'm not sure we disagree on the human rights thing.  @stahleyp had just been making extremely compressed claims like "If no god, anything goes, so egregious evils like slavery are good.  And human rights don't exist at all if there's no god."  My view is that human rights are not innate because god says so, and my main support for that view is just that god never used any of his prophets to make such a declaration, and that if one side is allowed to construe a few verses as humanistic and supportive of human rights, then it ought to keep its eyes open to all the verses where that same god seems to argue against human rights.  

 

We had a concept of justice and fairness before the written code of Hammurabi.  In there it is claimed that the king gets his authority to rule from the gods.  I don't know if the rules are claimed to come from god or if the authoritative claim rests on Hammurabi, but either way it doesn't read like a very inspired document to our modern sensibilities, however much it may have represented moral progress in their times.  If you beat my son or one of my wives and they died, then I'd have the right to beat one of your sons or wives to death.  I remember laughing when I first heard the rules read aloud, they're so comical to our modern sensibilities.

 

My argument is: God didn't grow up and start acting moral.  We did.  We humans made progress.  Often times we were aided by the ability to find some scriptural support for moral advancement, but just as frequently these advances were violently opposed and persecuted by religious dogmatists who were deluded that an unchanging god had wanted their preferred status quo to last forever.  

 

3 hours ago, Sweet said:

I don’t know much about these matters, but I know enough to suggest that it’s a lot more complex than you’ve summarised.  My own personal view is that this is one for the too hard pile.

 

My purpose isn't to convince anyone out of their good beliefs.  I think thoughtful people can examine all the data and still come to different conclusions.  Ultimately, every set of words is a poor summarization of reality, but I did make an attempt to be fair to both sides and I provided a lot more to engage with than stahleyp's question which was "So human rights do not actually exist beyond what other humans say, right? Slavery is actually okay (or anything else) as long as a society allows it?" 

 

To restate my own view in a nutshell: "I think human rights are a very good idea that we humans have developed over time, and yes, sometimes we've been supported by what the ancients wrote down as god's words, but if nobody believed in a certain human right then it wouldn't exist as a natural fact.  There are a lot of gods which humans stopped believing in over time.  They really did exist while they were believed in, insofar as they influenced human behaviors, but to the extent that they stop influencing any human behavior they turn from "living gods" to stone statues and history.  By this definition the God of Christianity definitely still exists, as does Allah.  In the here and now on earth, there isn't really much difference between a really-real-existing kind of god and a culturally-agreed-upon-mental-formation kind of god, because both kinds actually do inspire people to action."

 

I do enjoy the back and forth effort to find words that fairly state each person's view.  It's more fulfilling than scoring fake internet points by trying to dunk on people for flaws we may think we see in their incompletely stated views.   Hoping that nothing I've written is taken as an attempt to belittle or offend.

 

[DooDiligence]

IMO, Joseph Campbell is / was one of the most eloquent speakers on the subject of God.

Power of Myth | Ep. 1: 'The Hero’s Adventure' - There are 6 episodes and they're roughly an hour each.

 

[Guest]

I believe all too often people add unnecessary complexity to a topic and it makes for less rational thinking. So don't get too hung up on human rights and slavery. 

 

Keep in mind the key to morality either lies within society or outside of society. The ultimate question really boils down to what is the source of our morality/moral intuitions/moral compass? Or as I like to say, is there a Moral North Star our moral compasses point to or do we simply follow whatever our wishes are? Remember, if there is no North Star there can be no South Star either (ie immoral action).

 

Savery is just a topic that people are more emotionally invested in. You can make the same argument with things like Nazism, honor killing, outside of the norm sexual relationships like in Ancient Rome or Ancient Greece, etc. Literally we find "evil, bad, wrong" can apply.

 

I'll go on record to say that if God doesn't exist, all of those aforementioned things are okay because each society ultimately creates their own rules for morality. It is irrational to judge those society's and their made up standards to our made up standards; therewould be no defining Absolute Standard against which to measure. Ultimately there is no right or wrong beyond mere opinion if God is simply and only human idea.

 

That's why I think it's funny when atheists think there is a "right thing to do" in any way outside of arbitrary opinion even they, in some cases want obedience. They demand definitve evidence for God but demand no evidence whatsoever for their "magical morality" that we "ought" to follow.

 

 

 

 

[dwy000]

1 hour ago, stahleyp said:

That's why I think it's funny when atheists think there is a "right thing to do" in any way outside of arbitrary opinion even they, in some cases want obedience. They demand definitve evidence for God but demand no evidence whatsoever for their "magical morality" that we "ought" to follow.

 

 

"the right thing to do" is obviously an opinion - regardless of whether it comes from an atheist or religion.  Replace it by saying it's the "nice thing to do" which is how it's intended almost every time.  We demand evidence of god because religious people want us to adhere to their rules based on something we don't believe in.  

[RichardGibbons]

Tablets from a mountain doesn't solve the morality issue because one can't know God and because even if we could, God asserting something doesn't make it moral.

 

(Heck, if you must base your morality on rules from a higher-power, I think all morality should simply be defined as "whatever RichardGibbons says is moral." That's actually a more solid foundation for morality than a God--after all, it's much easier to believe that I exist, and you can even often get answers from me when you ask questions. And if you don't believe I'm a higher power, one worthy of delivering moral laws, I think that's just because you need to have more faith.)

 

Rather I think the most likely explanation is that morality is derived in the same sort of way that Math is. i.e. once you can count items, everything naturally follows, from addition and subtraction to differential equations.  Similarly, once you have groups of people, you need morality or else your society won't be stable. That's why at the core, most of the moral rules are the same between societies (e.g. generally, capriciously murdering other people in your society is discouraged.  And basically the edge-cases of morality seem to revolve around defining whether or not certain people are part of your society.)

[Blugolds]

Morality evolved because it is what is necessary for the majority to adhere to for civilization to progress. Its the natural result of thousands of years of trial and error. To have a functioning, progressing society, the major moral pillars are necessary and they were figured out years ago and passed down as a blueprint for what works. Call it natural selection, evolution, whatever, the winners survive, the losers dont. 

 

Lets look at it from a different angle, rather than "morality" ie no stealing, no killing etc etc lets just look at the most basic survival. You have a "tribe" that lives in the northernmost part of the globe, the inughuit, formerly known as "polar eskimos" they are a group of Inuit. For this example let these folks represent ALL of humanity. This tribe is split down the middle, half of the tribe wants to hunt/gather/work together and make shelter to escape the elements (let this represent acting "morally" as most would define it today). The other half of the tribe doesnt make shelter from the elements a priority, doesnt hunt/gather to store food and refuses to work together to accomplish these things for the good of all of their half of the tribe (let this behavior represent acting immorally). Without a supernatural being telling this tribe that they should store food/shelter themselves from the severe elements and work together...it works itself out. Those who figure out what "works" (what is moral) survive and continue, learn, work together and progress and those who do not, probably die or see what they are doing isnt working, the other half of the tribe has a better quality of life, so they change and adapt behavior proven to work. 

 

You put a group of people together, some believe "anything goes" and they steal, rob, kill and behave in all sorts of immoral ways. This becomes absolute turmoil, and the other half of the group says, hey, these guys are a pain, we cant get anything done, they're wrecking everything we have worked hard for etc and they are outcast, killed, or maybe they just dont survive because rather than helping their neighbor, conducting commerce honestly, working hard, they are out throwing a wrench in everything productive and structured, so they fail...the "good/moral" group flourishes and progresses either ending the bad group (maybe they are outcast and cant survive without working together, maybe they are killed) or the "moral" group just surpasses them by such a large margin that the bad group becomes insignificant or alters behavior to mimic what works. 

 

Divine intervention isnt needed for this to happen, it would happen naturally. Nazis, honor killings dont last because that isnt what progresses civilization. You cant have a tyrant attempting genocide that lasts for very long before the rest of the group (on earth) says HEY! You're F*ing up a good thing here! And throwing a wrench in the normal balance of things and stops it. A group that continually kills for honor, pretty soon doesnt have people left to kill, fizzles out, people figure out that doesnt work, and that idea/belief/experiment is found to be faulty and falls by the wayside. Civilization adapts/learns...and progresses without those extreme beliefs/ideas. 

 

This has been evident throughout history. Extreme views fizzle out when they upset the status quo. Humans crave stasis/equilibrium, we want to be comfortable, and severely "immoral" behavior is not conducive to what has allowed civilization to progress this far. 

 

Thats why I think its funny that people too often people add unnecessary complexity to a topic and it makes for less rational thinking. The above is the most rational explanation for morality "aka rules/guidelines how we should live, what works". The idea that there is an all powerful being that previously made himself accessible or presented himself (depending on what you believe) to everyday common folks regularly, provided these "guidelines/rules" and then disappeared for thousands of years just isnt logical. 

 

If there is one true religion, and one all powerful being that wants people to live a certain way, then why the mystery? If humans have free will, why nothing recent? Why not  regular interaction (present day) so that there was not 1000's of interpretations all claiming to know unequivocally the "right/true" answer. Just lay it out there...do this, no secrets, no confusion...do it or dont, your choice but no guessing. 

 

Why the stark difference in temperament between the new testament and the old. "God is love" but trolls Abraham to slit the throat of his son and then burn the body. Pretty messed up really. If there was a cult leader today that told a follower to trick his son to go with him up on a mountain, then tie him up, lay him down on an alter, put sticks on his chest and just as he is about to slit the poor kids throat, the cult leader is like...WHOA dont do it...yeah I was just kidding, just wanted to see if you would really do it man. 

 

What is moral about that? You'd think the guy was pretty sick. And what about Isaac, imagine you're a young boy, your hero, your dad, wants a male bonding camping trip up on a mountain, and you're excited...you get up there and he jumps you, ties you up, puts you on an alter, and walks over with a torch and a knife, by this time you're freaking out, probably pleading with your dad. Dad! What are you doing! You said we were going camping! I love you! Your dad raises the knife up above you, laying there, tied up, vulnerable, cant move, crying and just as Dad is about to deliver the death blow, stops...says he heard a voice tell him not to do it. Takes the rope off you, helps you hop off the alter and says...alright! lets camp! How would that affect your relationship with your dad? How would that traumatize you. You would either never speak to him again, run away, or think that your dad was a schizophrenic psychopath. 

 

Genesis 22

1

Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied.

2

Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

3

Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about.

4

On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance.

5

He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you." (Doesnt tell these two guys what he is up to)

6

Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together,

7

Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" (Wait a sec, somethings not right here!)

8

Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together. (Not telling Isaac what he's in for) 

9

When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.

10

Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.

11

But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied.

12

"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

 

 

 

What about 2 Kings 2:24? Some "small boys" tease an old guy for being bald, he cant take a joke and asks God to take care of these punks, so he sends 2 female bears to tare 42 (FORTY TWO) to shreds...maul them! What is moral about that? 

 

Plenty of other examples in the Bible of behavior that anybody today would call irrational and immoral. 

 

I can acknowledge proof of intelligent design. I dont think this entire set up (nature, math, galaxy, human body systems) came about via an accident, but if there is/was a grand architect,  they seem to have grown bored with the project and moved on to something else. And maybe, the work is done, maybe the sand castle is built, and it was never meant for anything more than to enjoy for a bit and then for the tide to come in and wash it away, maybe its just an experiment to see how long it takes.

 

You have billions of people for thousands of years pleading with a supernatural being for help and leadership. "They kingdom come, they will be done on earth, as it is in heaven." H E L P   U S !!! Man cant rule himself, govern us. Put an end to this suffering, we're struggling, you created all this, its a mess, please fix it, we want you to fix it! Nothing...crickets. All the problems in the world, the struggles of mankind and nothing...but he wants you to honor your father and your mother, only pray to him for help, dont use his name in vain when the help doesnt come and remember the day he took a break. Why? 

 

 

EDITED: Seems like Richard and I share the same sentiment and he was faster on the draw/submit button. 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Blugolds11

[nafregnum]

3 hours ago, stahleyp said:

Keep in mind the key to morality either lies within society or outside of society. The ultimate question really boils down to what is the source of our morality/moral intuitions/moral compass? Or as I like to say, is there a Moral North Star our moral compasses point to or do we simply follow whatever our wishes are? Remember, if there is no North Star there can be no South Star either (ie immoral action).

 

https://moralfoundations.org/

 

Jonathan Haidt has some interesting theories and research, covered in brief on that page but in more depth in his book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion"

 

The gist of it is that evolution baked into us a basic framework of "moral taste buds" -- we can tell when something is fundamentally unfair, or when someone is being disloyal or cheating, etc.  Troops of monkeys with an overly vicious alpha will naturally form a coalition to do away with the tyrant.  Sic semper tyrannis, since before humans walked the earth.  I remember hearing about a study with monkeys where two monkeys are separated but they can see each other, and they each have to do the same task in order to get a reward.   The first monkey is given some grapes, a favorite food for them.  The second monkey sees this. Then the second monkey is given some cucumber slices instead of grapes for its reward.  The second monkey brain must emotionally be screaming "UNFAIR!" because it takes the cucumber slices and throws them in the face of the lab tech.  Being able to detect when things seem fair will tend to lead toward survival of the group, so genes which help us detect fair treatment have been kindly baked in through evolution, or they're god-given by his/her magnificent evolutionary process.  

 

We've got a lot of pro-social genetic behaviors baked in like that.  We experience a thing called "Elevation Emotion" when we witness acts of moral beauty.  Just witness this pizza delivery guy who saved a bunch of kids from a burning house and try not to feel elevation emotion.  That feeling is baked in to most of us (minus perhaps the psychopaths)

 

 

 

But that's just the beginning.  Biological evolution gets you to cave man level where life is pretty much like the Hobbes quote "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."  Then comes the cultural dynamics. 

 

By the power of language we have shared stories and myths.  Using these shared stories, we humans have been improving on our genetic hardware by installing new moral ideas as software "Necktop Apps" (Daniel Dennett's fun term) ... we build agreed sets of guidelines and hard rules for the really important stuff ... but it has morphed over time.  We have evidence that very ancient people used to kill children and bury them under the foundation stones of new dwellings.  Perhaps their gods told them that it helped ward off evil spirits.  Warding of evil spirits was an important concern through the ages.  People in England during Shakespeare's time would put three big scratch marks on their fireplace mantles to repel witches who might otherwise descend into the house through the chimney.  Even up through the middle 1800s in American folk religious belief, people used "Lamen parchments" with religious power words on them like "Tetragrammaton" and seven pointed stars and funky line drawings, and amulets on necklaces and coin shaped talismans.    Why did they stop sacrificing kids?  In the Abrahamic tradition it's arguable that they stopped because of the story of Abraham and Isaac and the ancient interpretation which is essentially: "This story proves it's okay to stop killing kids, and kill rams and sheep instead."  To our modern minds it is so far out of context that it just looks like Abraham had a psychotic break and turned murderous on his kid. 

 

3 hours ago, stahleyp said:

 

Slavery is just a topic that people are more emotionally invested in. You can make the same argument with things like Nazism, honor killing, outside of the norm sexual relationships like in Ancient Rome or Ancient Greece, etc. Literally we find "evil, bad, wrong" can apply.

 

I'll go on record to say that if God doesn't exist, all of those aforementioned things are okay because each society ultimately creates their own rules for morality. It is irrational to judge those society's and their made up standards to our made up standards; there would be no defining Absolute Standard against which to measure. Ultimately there is no right or wrong beyond mere opinion if God is simply and only human idea.

 

Just because something is "made up" as you say, it doesn't mean it has no power.  Money is "made up" and yet Osama Bin Laden, a great hater of all things USA, had suitcases full of dollars.  Why?  Because if everyone else in the world agrees that you can trade suitcases full of green paper for real physical goods, then it's real.  

 

The superpower of humans is our ability to have millions or billions of people share the same ideas and act according to them.  

 

Take the story of Job in the Old Testament.  I don't think that guy really existed and I don't think god and satan placed bets on how far he could be pushed, etc.  But whether or not Job was a real person is like the least interesting question you could ask about the text.  The interesting questions are along the lines of, "What were the authors grappling with and how did this story serve their community?  What can we learn from the story?"  Can anyone name one single way in which the story of Job is _more_ powerful if there is a real human versus an allegory.  Our lives are uncertain and temporary.  Against this backdrop, the human mind craves certainties.  I admit I grew up believing Job was a totally real person, but I find the story so much more interesting when I'm not painted into that corner of believing an all powerful being did a good guy so dirty just because of a bet.  There are plenty of hints that Job wasn't real, by the way, which is why I changed my mind.  (There are multiple different endings to the story right there in the text of the old testament, for example -- and this is a pretty good indication that some editing was taking place.)

 

One more way to look at it: Aesops Fable of the Tortoise and Hare.  Does the power of that fable derive from the fact that a real tortoise one day had a race with a hare and won because he kept at it slow and steady?  Nope.  But when you're having a hard slog of it one day, you might remember the old story and feel a bit of inspiration to just keep plugging away at your task and eventually complete it.  The inspiration came from the story, not from a literal physical race.

 

3 hours ago, stahleyp said:

 

That's why I think it's funny when atheists think there is a "right thing to do" in any way outside of arbitrary opinion even they, in some cases want obedience. They demand definitive evidence for God but demand no evidence whatsoever for their "magical morality" that we "ought" to follow.

 

At least when the atheists think there's a right thing to do they can be expected to give you their rationale.  Because they aren't leaning their moral authority against the idea of a god, they basically _have to_ back up their arguments and try to be convincing.  On the other hand, I have often experienced an exasperating form of know-it-all-ism where religionists think they get to declare "This is what is right, both for me and for you.  Because god."  And then they walk off like they think they just dropped the mic.  I don't think any human deserves that much unquestioned loyalty.  That kind of environment would be an incubator for religious tyrants.

 

When you boil it all down, why would you say our sense of morality needs to be founded on a god, I mean the kind that exists even when nobody believes in him/her?  Why does that provide anything better than what we've got which is a set of moral rules that have evolved with our civilizations?  

 

If there really does exist an unambiguous Absolute Morality with a real god backing it up, then which god is it and what are the North Star rules?  And more to the point, why would those rules be _more_ valid if the god is real?  

[nafregnum]

As an aside, I gotta say I appreciate all the thoughtful contributions.  According to Wiio's law, it's pretty hard for this kind of communicating to succeed, and by succeed I mean "I understand another's perspective better" and not "I won an internet debate" ... I personally am not aiming to change minds.  I want to explore the space and understand+appreciate how other folks see it, and also to describe what the landscape looks like from where I am standing.  I'm not out to shame anyone or heap dishonor on anyone's ancestors, etc...

 

https://jkorpela.fi/wiio.html

 

 

[Longnose]

2 hours ago, Blugolds11 said:

Morality evolved because it is what is necessary for the majority to adhere to for civilization to progress. Its the natural result of thousands of years of trial and error. To have a functioning, progressing society, the major moral pillars are necessary and they were figured out years ago and passed down as a blueprint for what works. Call it natural selection, evolution, whatever, the winners survive, the losers dont. 

 

Lets look at it from a different angle, rather than "morality" ie no stealing, no killing etc etc lets just look at the most basic survival. You have a "tribe" that lives in the northernmost part of the globe, the inughuit, formerly known as "polar eskimos" they are a group of Inuit. For this example let these folks represent ALL of humanity. This tribe is split down the middle, half of the tribe wants to hunt/gather/work together and make shelter to escape the elements (let this represent acting "morally" as most would define it today). The other half of the tribe doesnt make shelter from the elements a priority, doesnt hunt/gather to store food and refuses to work together to accomplish these things for the good of all of their half of the tribe (let this behavior represent acting immorally). Without a supernatural being telling this tribe that they should store food/shelter themselves from the severe elements and work together...it works itself out. Those who figure out what "works" (what is moral) survive and continue, learn, work together and progress and those who do not, probably die or see what they are doing isnt working, the other half of the tribe has a better quality of life, so they change and adapt behavior proven to work. 

 

You put a group of people together, some believe "anything goes" and they steal, rob, kill and behave in all sorts of immoral ways. This becomes absolute turmoil, and the other half of the group says, hey, these guys are a pain, we cant get anything done, they're wrecking everything we have worked hard for etc and they are outcast, killed, or maybe they just dont survive because rather than helping their neighbor, conducting commerce honestly, working hard, they are out throwing a wrench in everything productive and structured, so they fail...the "good/moral" group flourishes and progresses either ending the bad group (maybe they are outcast and cant survive without working together, maybe they are killed) or the "moral" group just surpasses them by such a large margin that the bad group becomes insignificant or alters behavior to mimic what works. 

 

Divine intervention isnt needed for this to happen, it would happen naturally. Nazis, honor killings dont last because that isnt what progresses civilization. You cant have a tyrant attempting genocide that lasts for very long before the rest of the group (on earth) says HEY! You're F*ing up a good thing here! And throwing a wrench in the normal balance of things and stops it. A group that continually kills for honor, pretty soon doesnt have people left to kill, fizzles out, people figure out that doesnt work, and that idea/belief/experiment is found to be faulty and falls by the wayside. Civilization adapts/learns...and progresses without those extreme beliefs/ideas. 

 

This has been evident throughout history. Extreme views fizzle out when they upset the status quo. Humans crave stasis/equilibrium, we want to be comfortable, and severely "immoral" behavior is not conducive to what has allowed civilization to progress this far. 

 

Thats why I think its funny that people too often people add unnecessary complexity to a topic and it makes for less rational thinking. The above is the most rational explanation for morality "aka rules/guidelines how we should live, what works". The idea that there is an all powerful being that previously made himself accessible or presented himself (depending on what you believe) to everyday common folks regularly, provided these "guidelines/rules" and then disappeared for thousands of years just isnt logical. 

 

If there is one true religion, and one all powerful being that wants people to live a certain way, then why the mystery? If humans have free will, why nothing recent? Why not  regular interaction (present day) so that there was not 1000's of interpretations all claiming to know unequivocally the "right/true" answer. Just lay it out there...do this, no secrets, no confusion...do it or dont, your choice but no guessing. 

 

Why the stark difference in temperament between the new testament and the old. "God is love" but trolls Abraham to slit the throat of his son and then burn the body. Pretty messed up really. If there was a cult leader today that told a follower to trick his son to go with him up on a mountain, then tie him up, lay him down on an alter, put sticks on his chest and just as he is about to slit the poor kids throat, the cult leader is like...WHOA dont do it...yeah I was just kidding, just wanted to see if you would really do it man. 

 

What is moral about that? You'd think the guy was pretty sick. And what about Isaac, imagine you're a young boy, your hero, your dad, wants a male bonding camping trip up on a mountain, and you're excited...you get up there and he jumps you, ties you up, puts you on an alter, and walks over with a torch and a knife, by this time you're freaking out, probably pleading with your dad. Dad! What are you doing! You said we were going camping! I love you! Your dad raises the knife up above you, laying there, tied up, vulnerable, cant move, crying and just as Dad is about to deliver the death blow, stops...says he heard a voice tell him not to do it. Takes the rope off you, helps you hop off the alter and says...alright! lets camp! How would that affect your relationship with your dad? How would that traumatize you. You would either never speak to him again, run away, or think that your dad was a schizophrenic psychopath. 

 

Genesis 22

1

Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied.

2

Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

3

Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about.

4

On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance.

5

He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you." (Doesnt tell these two guys what he is up to)

6

Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together,

7

Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" (Wait a sec, somethings not right here!)

8

Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together. (Not telling Isaac what he's in for) 

9

When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.

10

Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.

11

But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied.

12

"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

 

 

 

What about 2 Kings 2:24? Some "small boys" tease an old guy for being bald, he cant take a joke and asks God to take care of these punks, so he sends 2 female bears to tare 42 (FORTY TWO) to shreds...maul them! What is moral about that? 

 

Plenty of other examples in the Bible of behavior that anybody today would call irrational and immoral. 

 

I can acknowledge proof of intelligent design. I dont think this entire set up (nature, math, galaxy, human body systems) came about via an accident, but if there is/was a grand architect,  they seem to have grown bored with the project and moved on to something else. And maybe, the work is done, maybe the sand castle is built, and it was never meant for anything more than to enjoy for a bit and then for the tide to come in and wash it away, maybe its just an experiment to see how long it takes.

 

You have billions of people for thousands of years pleading with a supernatural being for help and leadership. "They kingdom come, they will be done on earth, as it is in heaven." H E L P   U S !!! Man cant rule himself, govern us. Put an end to this suffering, we're struggling, you created all this, its a mess, please fix it, we want you to fix it! Nothing...crickets. All the problems in the world, the struggles of mankind and nothing...but he wants you to honor your father and your mother, only pray to him

for help, dont use his name in vain when the help doesnt come and remember the day he took a break. Why? 

 

 

EDITED: Seems like Richard and I share the same sentiment and he was faster on the draw/submit button. 

 

Turned this post into a rap via ChatGPT. seemed appropriate.... 

[Blugolds]

38 minutes ago, Longnose said:

 

Turned this post into a rap via ChatGPT. seemed appropriate.... 

 

Haha WOW, I dont know whats more impressive, the rap, or my strong feelings of inferiority from ChatGPT's mic drop. 

 

[formthirteen]

My god is ChatGPT, so I asked its opinion:

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by formthirteen

[Dave86ch]

18 hours ago, nafregnum said:

 

Adding this other idea from the thread, because I agree with the kernel of concern which I would restate as "Our by-the-people form of government only works if we maintain a culture of honesty."  It's the same inside company cultures: if corrupt employees are not fired, the dishonesty spreads.

@Dave86ch has a really cool pair of essays over on his blog about the ability of ChatGPT to take in a group of writings and "interview it" by asking questions of it within that specific set of writings ... he took a 12,000 page compilation of speeches and writings from Lee Kuan Yew, the father of modern Singapore who helped the country go from a per capita income of around $400 in 1960 to over $70,000 in 2021.  It's almost eery to be able to "make friends with the eminent dead" in this way.  

https://dscompounding.com/2023/02/27/ai-and-community-consciousness-chapter-two/

 

Question: What are the qualities of a good citizen?

Answer: A good citizen is someone who is productive, strives for excellence, and is motivated to make a positive impact on their community. They should be willing to work hard to improve their own life and the lives of those around them. They should also be respectful of the law and customs of their community, and be willing to help others in need. Finally, they should be committed to making the world a better place for everyone.

Charlie Munger has a story about how corruption can take hold within the culture of a company.  We can imagine this writ large in a society too:

https://jameslau88.com/2020/05/12/charlie-munger-on-worldly-wisdom-revisited-december-29-1997/

 

 

 

Thank you for your appreciation

 

In my next article, I will delve into the mind and ask some questions to Marcus Aurelius a stoic perspective.

 

My goal is not to sanctify these individuals, but to extract wisdom from this mix of light and dark that is humanity.

[cubsfan]

9 hours ago, Blugolds11 said:

Morality evolved because it is what is necessary for the majority to adhere to for civilization to progress.

 

There's your answer right there.

[coc]

13 hours ago, stahleyp said:

I believe all too often people add unnecessary complexity to a topic and it makes for less rational thinking. So don't get too hung up on human rights and slavery. 

 

Keep in mind the key to morality either lies within society or outside of society. The ultimate question really boils down to what is the source of our morality/moral intuitions/moral compass? Or as I like to say, is there a Moral North Star our moral compasses point to or do we simply follow whatever our wishes are? Remember, if there is no North Star there can be no South Star either (ie immoral action).

 

Savery is just a topic that people are more emotionally invested in. You can make the same argument with things like Nazism, honor killing, outside of the norm sexual relationships like in Ancient Rome or Ancient Greece, etc. Literally we find "evil, bad, wrong" can apply.

 

I'll go on record to say that if God doesn't exist, all of those aforementioned things are okay because each society ultimately creates their own rules for morality. It is irrational to judge those society's and their made up standards to our made up standards; therewould be no defining Absolute Standard against which to measure. Ultimately there is no right or wrong beyond mere opinion if God is simply and only human idea.

 

That's why I think it's funny when atheists think there is a "right thing to do" in any way outside of arbitrary opinion even they, in some cases want obedience. They demand definitve evidence for God but demand no evidence whatsoever for their "magical morality" that we "ought" to follow.

 

 

 

 

This is fairly simple to explain. The Dawkins’  and Harris’ of the world are simply Protestants who simply left behind the idea of God, but not the morals, values, and expectations associated with a Christian world. It’s not magic - it’s been bestowed on them by a long monotheistic tradition. And they rightfully see it as a pretty good system of ethics. (I say this as an atheist.) When they say “morality” they never really say which morality they mean - because they’re referring to Christian ethics. 
 

See the Nazi regime for an example of a truly Christian-repudiating world where people are not held to have equal right to life and liberty. 

[Spekulatius]

I think if you believe in God, you may as well believe in Santa Claus.

 

You don't need god for anything - how life started out, to explain the Universe, or the foundation of ethics. Santa Claus is a convenient and comfortable belief for 4 year old and god or religion is convenient and comforting belief for adults.

 

I also think ethics are developed evolutionary both on a biological as well as on a societal level. For example it is human (or mamal) instinct to care for our young, because it makes evolutionary sense to do so. If we would be a species that is programmed (by evolution)  to eat the weak younglings to let the strong survive, the ethics of a society that this species develops, would likely indeed condone and reward this practice.

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Spekulatius

[vinod1]

It is bit concerning to think

15 hours ago, stahleyp said:

I believe all too often people add unnecessary complexity to a topic and it makes for less rational thinking. So don't get too hung up on human rights and slavery. 

 

Keep in mind the key to morality either lies within society or outside of society. The ultimate question really boils down to what is the source of our morality/moral intuitions/moral compass? Or as I like to say, is there a Moral North Star our moral compasses point to or do we simply follow whatever our wishes are? Remember, if there is no North Star there can be no South Star either (ie immoral action).

 

Savery is just a topic that people are more emotionally invested in. You can make the same argument with things like Nazism, honor killing, outside of the norm sexual relationships like in Ancient Rome or Ancient Greece, etc. Literally we find "evil, bad, wrong" can apply.

 

I'll go on record to say that if God doesn't exist, all of those aforementioned things are okay because each society ultimately creates their own rules for morality. It is irrational to judge those society's and their made up standards to our made up standards; therewould be no defining Absolute Standard against which to measure. Ultimately there is no right or wrong beyond mere opinion if God is simply and only human idea.

 

That's why I think it's funny when atheists think there is a "right thing to do" in any way outside of arbitrary opinion even they, in some cases want obedience. They demand definitve evidence for God but demand no evidence whatsoever for their "magical morality" that we "ought" to follow.

 

 

 

 

 

OMG! The only reason you are not murdering your neighbors and raping women is because the Invisible Man said so? If for some reason, they were not mentioned or if there is a over-the-air update to the rules from the Invisible Man in the future which allows these things, you would merrily go along? 

[DooDiligence]

Blessed are the cheesemakers.

[coc]

Quote

I also think ethics are developed evolutionary both on a biological as well as on a societal level. For example it is human (or mamal) instinct to care for our young, because it makes evolutionary sense to do so.

 

This is slightly incoherent. There have been many systems of ethics in human history. Why would "biology" defend the current Western one? The Spartans thought it made "evolutionary sense" to leave weak newborns out to die because it would improve their stock. There is no such thing as ethics derived from biology.