@ KirspyKreme "Greetings,

I was hoping to get a discussion started on morals, specifically what they should be based in and if there are moral absolutes that exist or not. If you are an atheist: on what basis do you assert what is right and wrong? If you believe for some reason that there really is no right or wrong, then do you behave consistently with your worldview?"

Moral absolutes generally come from deontological moral philosophies. That's to say, moral absolutes usually lie in the realm of moralities that assert the importance of predefined rules over motive or consequential considerations, but there are an abundance of problems with such moral philosophies.

Take the example of the man, who, not having an education in the ways of the capitalist world and the means of garnering currency, lacks employable skills and lives in a non-welfare state. He begs on the street, but since begging is a social taboo, nobody has given him anything to eat, or any money, for a few days. He's starving, and comes across a street merchant who has a high education, and an abundance of food laid out on his market-stalls. The starving man steals a loaf of bread from a pile of fifty loaves of bred, and an apple from a pile of a hundred apples, but he gets caught. Stealing is against the law.

Moral dilemma: is the responsibility on the thief, because he broke the law? Is the responsibility on the merchant, because in his abundance he should have shared? Is the responsibility on the society, because it ostracizes the uneducated and demands that people be educated in the means of currency-garnering? Is the responsibility on the government for not providing this man with welfare, education or food?

My view is that the least responsible party is the thief, because the conditions of his society, government and upbringing led him to the position he's in, and he acted out of unavoidable, base human instincts. But deontological moral codes like the Judaic Pentateuch put the responsibility wholly on the thief. "Thou shalt not steal". Doesn't matter if your family's starving to death, stealing a loaf leads to the loss of a hand or maybe a spell in prison.

So, if not from deontology, then where did my moral conclusion come from? Pretty simple: human empathy. I understand, cognitively, the conditions of the thief's existence: his place in society, his disadvantages. I also understand his desperation, his helplessness, and his base biological urge, from an empathetic, emotional standpoint (and to assert emotional considerations as invalid is just plain wrong; every single one of us, whether we like to admit it or not, have emotions. Emotions are the reasons for many of the things we do; excitation creates motivation; love creates protectiveness; anger and indignation beget revenge, even if that revenge is only the kind of revenge that is legally enforced through judicial policy). I can put myself in the thief's shoes and know that if I were in those exact circumstances, I would have done exactly as he did. I think we all would.

The thief, in that circumstance, shouldn't be punished. He should be educated and looked after, so that he won't need or desire to steal in future. But people often don't agree with that (stealing's wrong all the time, remember) yet a fat-cat investment banker who rapes the economy of a country can get away scot-free, because that's finance, and that's different, eh?

Morality is at its best when it takes into account objective information, subjective needs, common desires and human empathy. The bible doesn't provide those and to be honest, neither really does law. There are of course things that are wrong nomatter what: rape, murder, child abuse, arson. Those are vindictive crimes that violate the rights of others out of little more than rage, power-grabbing, or sexual gratification at someone else's expense. I think the crux of a good morality (and thereby a good legal framework) is as Christoper Hitchens puts it; human solidarity. I, aside from instances when it is absolutely necessary to save my own life, shouldn't violate anyone else's rights. The only cases I can think of any exceptions for are in cases of self-defense, starvation or thirst. Even then, you don't rape someone in self defense. You fight them off. So there are actions that are never warranted; premeditated murder, rape, huge financial theft, white collar crimes, child abuse, child neglect, domestic abuse.

That's not to say people who commit those crimes should be repaid the same in return. I don't believe purely punitive judicial practices are actually just. People who commit unjustified acts are better off rehabilitated than struck with the lash. Society, actually, is better off with rehabilitated people than with public or private floggings.

kirspykreme - "It is always wrong to torture babies to death merely for one's personal pleasure"

I play minecraft (a video game) with the kids in my family. In the video game there are baby villagers, sometimes I burn them to death with lava (a slow process) because I enjoy it. I don't think it is morally wrong.
Inb4uaddmoreconditionals.

I really don't see the point of this conversation. No one, including myself, seems willing to even consider the idea that their beliefs about the world and those in it are wrong. When people are not willing to engage in dialogue, lip flapping devolves into intellectual masturbation and helps no one

Cheers :)