Proof that morality can only come from society.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
@John 6IX Breezy
I'm serious; I've found that people disagree on what justice is. For example: in many situations I don't think justice is even possible; but some people disagree with this, and that is fine. But it does make this idea of a universal notion of justice seem kind of silly.
They're allowed to disagree. The point is both people are still attempting to seek after justice. For example, the death penalty: I'm all for it, and I think its just. Others here are against it, they think the just thing is to make the person rot in jail. We may disagree on what is just, but we still have the drive or desire to seek after it.
Its that umbrella term that I'm interested in.
No we don't. Perhaps you do, be we don't.
Tell that to all the people on the forum that debated the topic.
"the idea of justice is universal and timeless, regardless of the specific things we label as just."
So Nazis Germany had the same concept of Justice as modern western democracies? I'm dubious, your claim seems erroneous to me. Biblical justice endorsed slavery, blood sacrifice, rapine, genocide, sex trafficking of women and girls, homophobia etc etc. I don't think those concepts of justice are universal or timeless, quite the opposite IMHO.
Let's try this, read over my comments a few more times, and summarize my argument below. You don't seem to be comprehending and I want to understand why.
@john 61x breezy
I'm tired of your attitude on this site how about you and I debate a topic. You believe in the Bible right? So let's debate the Bible. I propose that we have a single topic and go from there. You tell me your top 5 topics and I will tell you mine and maybe we can pick one to debate. I am willing even to debate you live. We would have to figure out the details but I feel this could be fun. What do you think? Oh and this debate is based on the Bible.
In regards to CyberLN and Mykcob4
Sounds kinda like a nature vs nurture argument. I can agree with both sides, depending on different circumstances.
But I do agree with you Mykcob4, morality is based on what is accepted by society, and it changes over time.
II think it's both. And I think it changes over time and can have sometimes a ton of variation based on the group.
So CyberLN you are saying that our genes adapt over time to how we are moral. For example, if a society has dictated a certain moral practice that subsequent generations will have the programming that that behavior is moral? I don't know if I can agree with that. Maybe I am not seeing your entire picture here.
I never said I thought it was genetic or genes. I think that based on the way the human brain works, it is probably involved in the development of what most folks refer to as morality. Empathy plays a big role in it. A great deal of my moral compass is rooted in empathy. And, from what I've read, things like mirror neurons effect empathy.
Nature vs Nurture is a false dichotomy. No one uses it anymore.
(Insert Nyar complaining about the use of "no one")
Whose society has the correct morals? Western? Chinese? Middle Eastern? South Pacific Islander? Nazi?
"Whose society has the correct morals? Western? Chinese? Middle Eastern? South Pacific Islander? Nazi?"
That depends what you base your morality on, how do you know if something is moral or not?
Good question, how?
You could start by asking, "Does this action harm another person or society?" If the answer is Yes, then it is probably immoral.
Who gets to define what harm is? Why is harm bad? What about harming someone in self defense, capital punishment, and incarcerating criminals? Isn’t it harmful to some to enforce a standard of do no harm to a society?
I asked you, I already gave you the basis of my moral worldview. To maximise emotional and physical well being, and protect the rights of individuals to created the best societies possible.
Whose opinion of what is best is correct? Some people think we should love our neighbors, others think we should cut off their heads?
"the morals you think are changing are not at all. Their roots have been the same for as long as man has been on this earth."
Do you think these are our only options? How about universal human rights as a starting point? If I can't abide my neighbour that doesn't infringe on his rights, can you see how chopping his head off might?
Those who disregard the rights of other and commit crimes lose some of their rights, in a moral society we woukd acknowledge motivators to commit crime can be eradicated with universal education and the eradication of factors like poverty racism and injustice.
As for who decides what is good, we do. We always have. Trying to introduce arbitrary antiquated religious dogma from the bronze and iron age and lend it gravitas by claiming "god wills it" isn't morality because it denies the rights of the individual. Secular government best protects the rights of the individual to believe what they want or nothing at all.
Criminals only lose some of their rights if they get caught and punished. Who is we? Western society? Does western society determine morality for all humans? How does education and money make people act morally?
"Criminals only lose some of their rights if they get caught and punished. Who is we? Western society? Does western society determine morality for all humans? How does education and money make people act morally?"
You still haven't answered my question? "..how do you know if something is moral or not?"
I've answered yours, any chance you'll answer my single question?
Ok Sheldon sorry, my view is that morals can only be objective if there is an objective standard outside of self or society. A moral law needs a moral law giver. If you adhere to a subjective standard of morality, then this moral law giver is not necessary.
"..how do you know if something is moral or not?""
"Ok Sheldon sorry, my view is that morals can only be objective if there is an objective standard outside of self or society. A moral law needs a moral law giver. If you adhere to a subjective standard of morality, then this moral law giver is not necessary."
I didn't ask your opinion on where morals come from. I asked how you know what is moral and what not? If human's are incapable of knowing what is moral then how is your claim any less subjective than an atheists?
So again how do you know what is moral in any objective way, if as you yourself claim humans are incapable of determining what is objectively moral? You are every bit as human as me after all...
We know what is moral because we have been given a moral law. I did not say humans are incapable of knowing what is moral. Humans can not justify an objective standard apart from a moral law giver (God).
What makes you think there is a objective moral standard?
If there is one act that will always be immoral independent of society or evolution of individuals then morality is objective. Torturing babies for fun is in my view always immoral. If you say morality is subjective, then necessarily torturing babies for fun is sometimes not immoral.
You say torturing babies for fun is wrong... I agree now what if god commanded it?
"We know what is moral because we have been given a moral law.".
I know no such thing, that's your subjective opinion, how do you objectively assess that law is moral? You haven't explained any objective method you have for doing this, only that in your subjective opinion your religions morals are objective because in your opinion they come from a perfect deity.
Is Exodus 21 moral when it describes in detail how we should buy and own slaves, and how we should be allowed to beat them as long as they don't die withing 48 hours?
Is blood sacrifice moral? Is homophobic condemnations of gay men and women moral? How do you make an objective assessment of these, again how do you know what is moral?
" I did not say humans are incapable of knowing what is moral. Humans can not justify an objective standard"
So we can only make subjective claims about what is moral, fine, then your subjective claims about religious morals are no different to atheistic claims about what is moral, except atheists are free to reason and assess the moral consequences of actions and behaviour, wheres you have foregone this and are simply blindly accepting what you're told.
@AJ, I can see you're struggling with the question in several posts. Do you think that if God wasn't real, we would be transformed into some kind of zombies and start killing each other or something like that?
Whether god is real or not, I suspect war would still be a scourge in humanity for a quite a long time in some places.
List of ongoing worldwide conflicts, updated in October 2017: www.warsintheworld.com/?page=static1258254223