Rough continuation of previous thread..
Offline Relating to the morals/values of the atheist, this is a quote from Nietzsche :
"The morals and values of Western man derive from religious beliefs that he is ceasing to hold. He therefore needs to re-evaluate his values."
In this way i think atheists should considere why they hold the morals that they do, as many of the morals that atheists do hold are similar to that of the ten commandments..
Why think it ok to be jealous of your neighbours wife.. and still hold that it is wrong to murder?
I'm NOT saying that being jealous of someone is on the same level as murder... or that murder is 'right', but why think that there is an objective morality regarding one thing... and not for another..
If someone thinks that there is objective morality.. then surely everything in the universe relates to this objective morality... If it is wrong to murder, then it must be wrong or right to commit suicide.... and it must be wrong or right to cause self harm, and it must be wrong or right to cause harm to others... and so on.
In other words, if you think that just one thing is objectively right or wrong, then you must (to avoid absurdity) think that every single action a person can make holds a moral perspective.
Much as Plato believed in the form of the good that gave people knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.. this applying to everything in the universe.
This one, absolute 'form of the good', which is often used by christians to explain their morality is what is needed if a person is going to 'KNOW' of any absolute morality.
So to put it another way... to say that there is definitive right and wrong in the world implies that there is something beyond our world (such as God) from which we can KNOW that these things are right and wrong... otherwise we have no infallible knowledge on which to base our objective morality...
To quote Nietzsche again:
" All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth. "
and
" There are no facts, only interpretations".
In relation to the first quote... it explains how nothing is Objectively truthful, but rather the morals that are held by most people are the ones that prevail... and so they end up being called Objective (much how 'Noor' insisted that it is an objective right that a person should not be murdered, although there was no objective basis for this) when in fact they are simply subjective collectivity.
The second quote is a very Nihilistic view, but it puts across plainly what i am trying to point out... There are NO definite morals, but only interpretations of what is right and wrong.
So the way i see it, you either believe there is objective morality (much like a religion) and call yourself an atheist... which is fairly hypocrytical in my opinion, as atheism simply becomes its own religion.
OR
You beleive that morality is a subjective thing and call yourself an atheist (my view).
This could also be the dividing line between atheism and agnosticism.
To finish..... a final quote " beauty is in the eye of the beholder" seems to some up what i am saying.
What are your views on this?
A few things i missed out...
I think the fact that we are completely free to do what we like and are not constrained by the boundaries of any poxy morality is what makes being agnostic/atheist such a good thing... so why then go and create your own objective values to restrain yourself again? its as if people go in a big loop... from religious to atheist.. to atheist with objective morality... and back to religious again.
As Nietzsche said : "fear is the mother of morality" ... creating morals is a product of being fearful of the godless life...
Finally... what i have said does seem to be the same as the criticisms that theists have against atheism... and i think that the criticisms of theists are very valid ones... HOWEVER... i see the points raised as positive rather than negative...
Yes i am free to steal if needs be... NO im not crazy and im NOT going to go and steal things .... BUT i am more free than any theist... and if i got into the circumstance in which i needed to steal... then i wouldnt have to feel guilty about doing it.. which is a good thing.
[quote=Tedy]Relating to the morals/values of the atheist, this is a quote from Nietzsche :
"The morals and values of Western man derive from religious beliefs that he is ceasing to hold. He therefore needs to re-evaluate his values."
In this way i think atheists should considere why they hold the morals that they do, as many of the morals that atheists do hold are similar to that of the ten commandments.. [/quote]
The Buddha created a moral code very similar to the Ten Commandments several centuries before Jesus, and he was an atheist. These morals don't come from a god, they have to do with evolution. You can also read [url=http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5431]Deludedgod's essay[/url].
[quote]Why think it ok to be jealous of your neighbours wife.. and still hold that it is wrong to murder? [/quote]
Because murder is involuntary taking away someone's life. The person owns himself/herself. It's not that bad to be jealous because jealousy is a feeling, it isn't violating anyone else's rights.
[quote]I'm NOT saying that being jealous of someone is on the same level as murder... or that murder is 'right', but why think that there is an objective morality regarding one thing... and not for another.. [/quote]
Because murder is taking someone else's life involuntary. Feeling jealous isn't even close to violating someone's rights. (Unless you act on it in some cases.)
[quote]If someone thinks that there is objective morality.. then surely everything in the universe relates to this objective morality... If it is wrong to murder, then it must be wrong or right to commit suicide.... and it must be wrong or right to cause self harm, and it must be wrong or right to cause harm to others... and so on.[/quote]
If someone thinks there's nothing wrong with suicide, it's just taste and not morals.
For a moral to be true it must apply equally to everyone. If it isn't, then why can't I claim it's fine for me to beat you up but it's not moral for you to beat me up?
The moral code I'm suggesting is contradictory and therefore invalid.
As for objective morality, how come you don't see most animals going around and killing each other? They have a basic understanding of rights.
[quote]In other words, if you think that just one thing is objectively right or wrong, then you must (to avoid absurdity) think that every single action a person can make holds a moral perspective.[/quote]
There's a difference between morals and tastes. If I think sex before marriage is fine, that's just a taste because not everyone thinks the same. If I think it's moral to beat you up, that moral also applies to you and you have the right to beat me up in self-defense.
[quote]Much as Plato believed in the form of the good that gave people knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.. this applying to everything in the universe.
This one, absolute 'form of the good', which is often used by christians to explain their morality is what is needed if a person is going to 'KNOW' of any absolute morality. [/quote]
My view of good is when you're respecting my rights. A Christian view of good is when you're following the bible. The sources are different but both of us agree that murder is wrong. (The bible does steal from secular morality which comes from rights and evolution though.)
[quote]So to put it another way... to say that there is definitive right and wrong in the world implies that there is something beyond our world (such as God) from which we can KNOW that these things are right and wrong... otherwise we have no infallible knowledge on which to base our objective morality... [/quote]
I know murder is wrong because it's taking away life involuntarily. Involuntary = Violation of rights = Wrong.
[quote]To quote Nietzsche again:
" All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth. "
and
" There are no facts, only interpretations".
In relation to the first quote... it explains how nothing is Objectively truthful, but rather the morals that are held by most people are the ones that prevail... and so they end up being called Objective (much how 'Noor' insisted that it is an objective right that a person should not be murdered, although there was no objective basis for this) when in fact they are simply subjective collectivity.[/quote]
It isn't wrong to kill a person if the person consented to it. Which means it isn't murder. But anyway, people own themselves. They have a right over their body and murder is involuntarily taking life. It's a violation of rights.
If a person doesn't own themselves, then still it's the person's choice whether to give up their body to someone else's ownership or to continue owning themselves. It always comes down to the individual.
[quote]The second quote is a very Nihilistic view, but it puts across plainly what i am trying to point out... There are NO definite morals, but only interpretations of what is right and wrong.[/quote]
If a person has a different view of right vs. wrong like in arranged marriages, etc. that's taste and not morals. For a moral to be true it must apply to everyone equally.
[quote]So the way i see it, you either believe there is objective morality (much like a religion) and call yourself an atheist... which is fairly hypocrytical in my opinion, as atheism simply becomes its own religion.[/quote]
A religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god(s). Some atheists can believe in an objective morality, some can believe in a subjective morality. Atheism can never be a religion.
[quote]OR
You beleive that morality is a subjective thing and call yourself an atheist (my view).
This could also be the dividing line between atheism and agnosticism.[/quote]
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge. They lie on two separate axes. You can be agnostic-atheist, gnostic-atheist, agnostic-theist, or gnostic-theist.
[quote]To finish..... a final quote " beauty is in the eye of the beholder" seems to some up what i am saying.
What are your views on this?[/quote]
If I find something beautiful and you don't, then that's just taste. If I want privacy that's a taste since not all of us want privacy.
But ALL people don't want to be murdered because murder by definition is involuntary.
See the difference between taste and morals?
[quote=Tedy]A few things i missed out...
I think the fact that we are completely free to do what we like and are not constrained by the boundaries of any poxy morality is what makes being agnostic/atheist such a good thing... so why then go and create your own objective values to restrain yourself again?[/quote]
I didn't create them myself. I didn't create a moral against murdering. I just understood that murdering is wrong.
[quote] its as if people go in a big loop... from religious to atheist.. to atheist with objective morality... and back to religious again.[/quote]
Atheism is in no way a religion by itself. It can be a part of a religion (Buddhism, Taoism) but it can't stand as a religion alone.
It's the lack of belief in a god. Lack of belief does not imply any other positive positions.
[quote]As Nietzsche said : "fear is the mother of morality" ... creating morals is a product of being fearful of the godless life... [/quote]
I didn't create them. In fact they're evident in even the animal kingdom. Animals don't go around murdering each other off (Unless in self-defense or hungry.)
[quote]Finally... what i have said does seem to be the same as the criticisms that theists have against atheism... and i think that the criticisms of theists are very valid ones... HOWEVER... i see the points raised as positive rather than negative... [/quote]
Okay.
[quote]Yes i am free to steal if needs be... NO im not crazy and im NOT going to go and steal things .... BUT i am more free than any theist... and if i got into the circumstance in which i needed to steal... then i wouldnt have to feel guilty about doing it.. which is a good thing.[/quote]
My atheism has practically nothing to do with telling me that stealing is wrong. It's a simple idea of rights that also developed amongst the animal kingdom over time.
Hmm...
- You say "I know murder is wrong because it's taking away life involuntarily. Involuntary = Violation of rights = Wrong."
This is different to saying... for example "I know murder is wrong because i have a divine connection with the non-material world and it tells me what is right and what is wrong.."
You simply claim you have knowledge of something, from something that is not knowledge... It is not an absolute that taking away life involuntarily is a wrong doing - Therefore you in fact do not Know anything...
I can't put it more plainly than that...
An Objective moral = a moral that is fact regardless of where when who why which... it would still apply even if humans were wiped out of existense.. it would apply to aliens... it pre-dates the existence of humanity.... if you say that it is wrong to murder 'OBJECTIVELY' then humans did not decide this... they simply discovered it... So who did decide this?
You can't simply observe that in the animal kingdom.. animals do not go around killing each other... and observe that humans don't like being killed... and that most humans don't go around killing...
and then say that this helps to proove that there is objective morality...
Majority doesn't mean truth...
Even if it is built in.. to humans an animals that it is wrong to murder... so in our brains.. we actualy feel it is wrong to murder (maybe explaining why animals do not randomly kill... it is their instinct..)... then this does not mean it is objective...
objective morality exists without humans...
As Jean Paul Sartre says "Existense preceeds essence"
We are here before we have a reason to be here... and therefore we are also have to be the creator of our morals and our reason to live...
You must believe that essense preceeds existence... as it is wrong to murder before humans were in existence...
1. You think murder is objectively wrong
2. Therefore you must have discovered that it was wrong...
3. There is no materialistic evidence of objective morality... (you cannot use the 'animal kingdom' argument... because this simply states that animals do not generaly murder each other.. This could be instinct... a social contract... OR see point 4.)
4. Therefore you must have gained (if you are correct) your knowledge that murder is wrong from an external source... you must have tapped into a different realm... that is not part of this reality... OR you are mistaken... and infact have subjective morality...
Do you see where i am coming from now?
Do you see what you are implying by saying anything is objectively wrong or right?
Are you going to resort to simply claiming that "I know murder is wrong because it's taking away life involuntarily. Involuntary = Violation of rights = Wrong." Which is the same as me saying :
" I know that eating green sweets is wrong because it's the eating of green sweets. Eating of green sweets = violation of the green sweet protection union = Wrong."
The green sweet protection union being the random decision that green sweets have rights... much the same as the random decision that humans have rights...
.... not convinced?
Morality is preferred behavior. All people don't want you to steal their stuff or murder them. (If they don't mind, then it's not stealing or murder.) Preferred behavior definitely exists, and they're used as a means to get others to respect our values.
Stealing is wrong because it's involuntary - the person prefers that you don't steal his stuff. The person has the right to label stealing wrong because you're going against his rules for his stuff. And the person has a right to label it wrong because it's not what he wants. You're disrespecting his rights, he doesn't want that. It's wrong according to his ethics.
And ALL people prefer that you don't steal because stealing by definition is involuntary. Stealing = Involuntary = Violation of rights = Going against people's rules = Wrong.
Going against people's ethics is objectively wrong because it's not what the person wants. And all people don't want you stealing their stuff.
As to your green sweet point, not all people think eating sweets is wrong - eating sweets doesn't have anything to do with deprival of something that belongs to another living, thinking person (Unless you stole the sweets.)