Moral philosophy transplanted from Disney thread

[Longnose]

10 minutes ago, DooDiligence said:

Anyone ever been hangry?

 

 

My wife gets hangry (aka fungry).

 

When she starts getting in a mood. I start thinking in my head. OK she needs to eat where do we go lol.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, rkbabang said:

 

 

Yes, what is your point?  You could have been born a conjoined twin or with a cleft lip, or with a love of rape and murder.  It IS pretty random.  You inherit half your genes from your mother's side and half from your father's, but the specific genes you have from each is pretty much luck of the draw.  Then there is random mutations of which we all have some (some more than others) which is also just random.    So yes, you could have been randomly born without a sense of empathy and be someone who enjoys killing others.  This only bothers you because it isn't how you were born, if you were born that way it wouldn't bother you at all.

 

 

My point is that rape isn't actually "wrong." It's really just an action started by a bunch of chemicals. 

 

Only our opinion of it makes it that way. If we grew up in Ancient Rome, we might even think of rape as "good" since they used war rape. Is that fair?

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

They are correct because we believe them to be correct! There is no definitive "correct" view.  Yours are just opinions as well.  The difference is I came about mine through independent thought and yours were dictated to you by followers of an imaginary thing. 

 

Why do you trust your thoughts since they're based on randomness? Why even assume you are capable of "reason"? 

 

So Nazis would be "correct" or "morally good" as long as they were in power, right?

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

This is just plain wrong. You do not have free will that can override the synapse firing. Those synapse firing ARE your free will.

 

Are you actually arguing that it's okay for a god with infinite love to ignore the massacre of innocent children because "hey, it will all even out in the end"?  Seriously, is that your argument?

 

Free will could be an illusion, I'll admit that. I don't think so but could be wrong.

 

I wouldn't say God is "ignoring" them. I mean, He became flesh and died on a cross for everyone. I'm saying if God is omnipotent, why couldn't He make people whole (and then some)? Isn't that the definition of omnipotent?

 

If we take on the atheistic view point, we are simply sacks of skin and bones - only are opinions of something make it wrong. Nothing less, nothing more. Anything can be "good" if we believe it to be so as well as anything "bad." Agree?

[rkbabang]

9 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

My point is that rape isn't actually "wrong." It's really just an action started by a bunch of chemicals. 

 

Only our opinion of it makes it that way. If we grew up in Ancient Rome, we might even think of rape as "good" since they used war rape. Is that fair?

 

 

Yes exactly.  Rape is wrong because we think it is.  Again, what's your point?   If you live in a society where most people disagree with what you think is wrong, then you are out of luck.  For example I think taxation is wrong.  In my opinion it is violent theft of property not morally different than someone putting a knife to your neck and demanding your money at an ATM on a dark street.  But most people in my society think it's just fine, so I just have to live with it.  There is no god making these decisions, just people.

 

[DooDiligence]

The chemical you're thinking of here would be rohypnol.

 

In what world is rape not wrong? I can only think of one scenario where you're dating a chick who likes it rough.

[dwy000]

16 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

Why do you trust your thoughts since they're based on randomness? Why even assume you are capable of "reason"? 

 

So Nazis would be "correct" or "morally good" as long as they were in power, right?

No.  Just....no.  I trust my thoughts because that is all anyone has.  Nothing else.  While there is an element of randomness there is also experience, upbringing, teaching etc.  

 

Nazis are not correct and not morally good.  But I'm sure they thought they were correct when they did what they did.  Or many did.  Others followed along because the consequences of standing up to it would have been worse than going along.  Just ask the women standing up to the Taliban.

[dwy000]

22 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

Free will could be an illusion, I'll admit that. I don't think so but could be wrong.

 

I wouldn't say God is "ignoring" them. I mean, He became flesh and died on a cross for everyone. I'm saying if God is omnipotent, why couldn't He make people whole (and then some)? Isn't that the definition of omnipotent?

 

If we take on the atheistic view point, we are simply sacks of skin and bones - only are opinions of something make it wrong. Nothing less, nothing more. Anything can be "good" if we believe it to be so as well as anything "bad." Agree?

Ask the dead kids' parents if god was ignoring them.  I find it disturbing that people rationalize and allow god to ignore the massacre of innocent children and then sit at the dinner table and ask god to help cure their minor ailment or let their football team win.  Cuz that's important but dead kids will just even out in the end.  

 

We are sacks of skin and bones that think and have opinions.  That's it, and there's nothing wrong with that.  When we die, it's all over - there's no part of us that carries on.  Just kapoot.  The views on what is "good" or "wrong" are personal but overall reflect what broader society thinks is right or wrong.  The Taliban thinks what they are doing is absolutely right in the eyes of god.  We don't.  The Inquisition thought they were absolutely right at the time.  I'm sure in both cases there were people who thought "this can't be the right thing to do" but still did it because broader society allowed it.  Over time good seems to always prevail over evil.  

Edited March 10, 2023 by dwy000

[Ross812]

5 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

My point is that rape isn't actually "wrong." It's really just an action started by a bunch of chemicals. 

 

Only our opinion of it makes it that way. If we grew up in Ancient Rome, we might even think of rape as "good" since they used war rape. Is that fair?

 

I think you get it now. Morality is a social construct. There is some biological hardwiring passed down through evolution like empathy that are advantageous to a group as a whole helping the group work together more efficiently. The concept of god and religion is a social construct to enforce the morality of a group and enhance cooperation. 

[dwy000]

Just now, Ross812 said:

 

I think you get it now. Morality is a social construct. There is some biological hardwiring passed down through evolution like empathy that are advantageous to a group as a whole helping the group work together more efficiently. The concept of god and religion is a social construct to enforce the morality of a group and enhance cooperation. 

+1  that's really well put

[Ross812]

The prevailing view of the time had a problem with the morals of Nazis, slavery, the Taliban etc. The victors found the morals of the former groups so abhorrent wars were fought. Sic semper tyrannis. 

 

The culture wars of today are the result of a group seeking to change an existing social norm. Some are taking their mores based on a 2000 year old text, others from a purely conservative point of view not wanting change, some want change for gain more personal freedom, and some thoughtfully consider the change and form an opinion one way or the other.

 

The 2000 year old text eventually seems to support the mores of the day. I seem to remember some passages about giving up possessions and something about a rich man getting into heaven is like a camel passing through the eye of a needle, but we tend to adhere to what is convenient. The good book supports slavery, until it doesn't.       

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, rkbabang said:

 

 

Yes exactly.  Rape is wrong because we think it is.  Again, what's your point?   If you live in a society where most people disagree with what you think is wrong, then you are out of luck.  For example I think taxation is wrong.  In my opinion it is violent theft of property not morally different than someone putting a knife to your neck and demanding your money at an ATM on a dark street.  But most people in my society think it's just fine, so I just have to live with it.  There is no god making these decisions, just people.

 

 

Well, at least your honest. I think most people think that "Nazis are bad" is a moral fact and not mere opinion. I believe that moral truths exist and there really is ways that we "ought" to act so that's why I went with theism. 

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, DooDiligence said:

The chemical you're thinking of here would be rohypnol.

 

In what world is rape not wrong? I can only think of one scenario where you're dating a chick who likes it rough.

 

Ancient Rome thought war rape was good. Were they right? Each society makes up their own rules, correct? Why is it rational to say they're wrong or that slavery is "wrong" then in that case? We're judging their self created (arbitrary) moral values against our (arbitrary) moral values, right?

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

No.  Just....no.  I trust my thoughts because that is all anyone has.  Nothing else.  While there is an element of randomness there is also experience, upbringing, teaching etc.  

 

Nazis are not correct and not morally good.  But I'm sure they thought they were correct when they did what they did.  Or many did.  Others followed along because the consequences of standing up to it would have been worse than going along.  Just ask the women standing up to the Taliban.

 

Your upbringing, teaching is just kind of arbitrary though? If you were brought up as Nazi would you values somehow be less "true"?

 

So if Nazis think they were correct and morally good and we do not, who's right? Neither? 

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Ask the dead kids' parents if god was ignoring them.  I find it disturbing that people rationalize and allow god to ignore the massacre of innocent children and then sit at the dinner table and ask god to help cure their minor ailment or let their football team win.  Cuz that's important but dead kids will just even out in the end.  

 

We are sacks of skin and bones that think and have opinions.  That's it, and there's nothing wrong with that.  When we die, it's all over - there's no part of us that carries on.  Just kapoot.  The views on what is "good" or "wrong" are personal but overall reflect what broader society thinks is right or wrong.  The Taliban thinks what they are doing is absolutely right in the eyes of god.  We don't.  The Inquisition thought they were absolutely right at the time.  I'm sure in both cases there were people who thought "this can't be the right thing to do" but still did it because broader society allowed it.  Over time good seems to always prevail over evil.  

 

 

So can an broader society ever be incorrect about what's right and wrong?

 

Good cannot prevail over evil...because each of those things are based on opinion, right? If the Taliban died off would evil had prevailed over good?

 

For the "it's all over at death". The science is not 100% with you on that one. There is evidence that a part of lives beyond death. 

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Ross812 said:

 

I think you get it now. Morality is a social construct. There is some biological hardwiring passed down through evolution like empathy that are advantageous to a group as a whole helping the group work together more efficiently. The concept of god and religion is a social construct to enforce the morality of a group and enhance cooperation. 

 

So would it be rational to override this social construct when we think it's in our best interest or benefit outweighs the risk?

[rkbabang]

5 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

Well, at least your honest. I think most people think that "Nazis are bad" is a moral fact and not mere opinion. I believe that moral truths exist and there really is ways that we "ought" to act so that's why I went with theism. 

 

Most people DO think Nazis are bad.  I think Nazis are bad too, but I also realize that if I lived in a Nazi society my thinking that Nazis are bad wouldn't matter.  You said "is that fair?" earlier.  No its not fair, the universe isn't fair and never has been.  If you live in a society where most people have the same moral compass that you do then you are simply incredibly lucky.  Ask someone starving in North Korea if life is fair.  Ask the hundreds of millions tortured, starved, or murdered by Hitler, Stalin, Moa, Pol Pot, etc if life is fair.  It isn't.  There is no god doing these things, stopping people from doing these things, or making life fair.  It's just us.  

 

 

[Guest]

Just now, rkbabang said:

 

Most people DO think Nazis are bad.  I think Nazis are bad too, but I also realize that if I lived in a Nazi society my thinking that Nazis are bad wouldn't matter.  You said "is that fair?" earlier.  No its not fair, the universe isn't fair and never has been.  If you live in a society where most people have the same moral compass that you do then you are simply incredibly lucky.  Ask someone starving in North Korea if life is fair.  Ask the hundreds of millions tortured, starved, or murdered by Hitler, Stalin, Moa, Pol Pot, etc if life is fair.  It isn't.  There is no god doing these things, stopping people from doing these things, or making life fair.  It's just us.  

 

 

 

By "is that fair?" I didn't mean it be fair/equal type of thing; I meant it as more of a "am I condensing your thought accurately?" type of fair.

 

Right but just because people think Nazis are "bad' doesn't mean they are, right? It's an opinion. Or back to the Ancient Rome and rape, if we believe rape to be good, it's good, correct?

[Ross812]

4 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

So would it be rational to override this social construct when we think it's in our best interest or benefit outweighs the risk?

It is absolutely rational to override the social construct when it is to your best interest or outweighs the risk. That is how new mores are developed - say marriage equality, abolition of slavery etc. You better be ready for the consequences when you go against the social construction! If you can't build a consensus for your new mor, you are going to get steam rolled. 

[Ross812]

2 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

By "is that fair?" I didn't mean it be fair/equal type of thing; I meant it as more of a "am I condensing your thought accurately?" type of fair.

 

Right but just because people think Nazis are "bad' doesn't mean they are, right? It's an opinion. Or back to the Ancient Rome and rape, if we believe rape to be good, it's good, correct?

Good and bad is a social construct. Murder is largely universally wrong - unless, we are fighting a war... Individuals have refused to fight on religious beliefs and have suffered the consequences for going against the prevailing mor of society that "this bad group" is ok to kill.   

[nafregnum]

2 hours ago, stahleyp said:

Yeah, but atheist values have zero standing in reality and cannot be correct. Theirs can only be an opinion of what is "correct." If we really are, ultimately, just sacks of skin and bones flying sitting on a rock flying through space, how could any values be "correct"? 

 

"There is no Justice.  There's just me,"

  -- Death (from Terry Pratchet's comedic Discworld#4 book "Mort")

 

Modifying that a bit: 

 

"There is no Justice.  There's just... us."

 

The fundamental trouble facing your formulation of "god values = real, unbeliever values = zero standing" is that your god didn't actually ever say anything about the use of embryonic stem cells in research, or a thousand other new questions. 

 

Humans climbed the mountain of knowledge a lot higher than back when prophets were claiming to speak for god.  Now there are moral conundrums which were unknown to anyone 1,000+ years ago.  The believers are left in the _same_ position as everyone else, because god either grew tired of us and stopped bestowing awesome wisdom on us or he never was up there in the first place and we were accepting the writings of well meaning storytellers as the words of god.  

 

What does god say about X, Y, or Z new issue?  All you  get are a bunch of interpreters of god who are so bold as to stand up and claim they know the mind of god and we all better listen up and obey.

 

There's something wrong with the model where god tells that other guy over there (bishop/pastor/pope), and then he tells you what god said.  Since god isn't unequivocally phoning in these instructions to each of us, how can you claim that atheist values are in a -1 position compared to the +1 position of believer values?  

[dwy000]

31 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

Your upbringing, teaching is just kind of arbitrary though? If you were brought up as Nazi would you values somehow be less "true"?

 

So if Nazis think they were correct and morally good and we do not, who's right? Neither? 

Both.  Everyone thinks they are morally correct - or they wouldn't have those views.  It's just a matter of what broader society thinks relative to your views.  And that changes over time.  

[dwy000]

29 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

 

So can an broader society ever be incorrect about what's right and wrong?

 

Good cannot prevail over evil...because each of those things are based on opinion, right? If the Taliban died off would evil had prevailed over good?

 

For the "it's all over at death". The science is not 100% with you on that one. There is evidence that a part of lives beyond death. 

No, once again.  No there's not.  There's a hope and desire because people are scared and don't want death to be the end game so they make up all kinds of ideas about what goes on after because it makes them feel better.  But there is absolutely zero evidence or proof that there is anything after death.  

[nafregnum]

3 hours ago, stahleyp said:

So do you believe gene survival is our only true purpose?

 

Also, how does one define human flourishing and well-being? Plenty of people say that but I do not know what it very vague and can literally mean just about anything. 

 

Well, at the level of the gene that's the only true purpose.  To us as humans it's wonderfully more complex.  

 

You could read "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris or a synopsis of his arguments for a good-enough definition of flourishing and well-being.  There could be multiple mountaintops of high flourishing in the moral landscape.  In other words, many cultures might come up with very good sets of morals for increasing well being among their people.  But when you show me an ancient culture that killed their children to bury under their homes, or that used voodoo spells to attack their neighbors, I'd argue that they haven't gotten very high on the well being scale yet, and some improvements could be made.  

[dwy000]

25 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

By "is that fair?" I didn't mean it be fair/equal type of thing; I meant it as more of a "am I condensing your thought accurately?" type of fair.

 

Right but just because people think Nazis are "bad' doesn't mean they are, right? It's an opinion. Or back to the Ancient Rome and rape, if we believe rape to be good, it's good, correct?

Again, you making a huge leap that there is a definitive "good" and "bad" independent of opinions and society.  We are saying that good and bad IS what society and opinions at the time and in that place dictate.  We may look back on past generations actions and say "that's bad" but we are doing it in the context of today's opinions and today's society.  200 years from now society (and opinions) might have morphed to say that what we consider good today might not be so good tomorrow.