Atheism And Moral Progress

[carpedm9587]

It would be preferable for you to actually interact with what I said rather than launch into a separate epiphany of your own.

Actually, that WAS in response to your post.. And it was certainly no epiphany. I've held these views for some time now.

Again, we are simply naturally evolved biological creatures existing in an amoral material environment. If there is any goodness or caring to be done we are the ones to do it and to this end we devise rules of behaviour, which we refer to as morality, in order to benefit society as a whole. At one time we attributed these rules of behaviour to divine revelation, nowadays increasingly less so in the more developed world.

I've not taken issue with any of these points. I've stated them myself several times. My post merely fleshed out a bit of the relationship between morality and sentience.

[carpedm9587]

The point is that there is no need of a god, or of morals to have an objective existence, in order that, as laws, they serve to benefit society as a whole. That's what seer can't seem to grasp.

There certainly is no need for a god for there to be "morality." As for "morals having objective existence," I am not sure what this means. That sentient beings moralize is clearly objectively true. But your language seems to suggest that you think there is an objective moral code to which all of us are attempting (or should be attempting) to align. I would disagree that such a thing exists. There are communal moral codes, but those are nothing more than the aggregate of individual moral codes - they are not "moral absolutes" in the sense theists and so-called "moral realists" use the term.

[seer]

You people have made it perfectly clear that the unborn only matter to you when they are unborn, so lets quit with the canard already, eh! We on the other hand, whether you agree or not, don't necessarily consider a fetus to be a human being as do you, so we don't see abortion as killing. We also don't consider that choice to be anybody's business other than the parents, ultimately the mothers. And yes, I know that a single mother can receive welfare, my point was that conservatives don't want her and her child to get welfare.

So it benefits society to kill millions of our own unborn children. Got it...

[Sparko]

So it benefits society to kill millions of our own unborn children. Got it...

Sure am glad that Jiml ISN'T the moral judge of the world. whew.

[Roy]

Because there is no such thing as the fittest people.

Of course there is. Some people produce more children than others.

Just because Lee doesn't know what he's talking about doesn't let you off the hook.

[seer]

Sure am glad that Jiml ISN'T the moral judge of the world. whew.

I guess there are different opinions on what benefits society.

[Roy]

Oh, but the Nazis were all into survival of the fittest.

Claptrap. The Nazis were into the survival of Aryans.

[seer]

Claptrap. The Nazis were into the survival of Aryans.

Yes, but they thought they were the fittest, a superior race. Herbert Spencer's survival of the fittest (a term he coined) which was the basis for Social Darwinism.

[Roy]

Which society? In China, they used to kill girl children because they were too overpopulated.
...
Currently it appears our society thinks it is good to abort babies. But just 50 years ago we thought that was completely immoral and bad for society.

All this indicates is that you know little about either recent Chinese or US history.

The Chinese didn't kill girls because they were overpopulated, they did it because boys were considered more valuable.
USans didn't think abortion was completely immoral, that's a recent evangelical concept projected onto the past.

[Sparko]

All this indicates is that you know little about either recent Chinese or US history.

The Chinese didn't kill girls because they were overpopulated, they did it because boys were considered more valuable.
USans didn't think abortion was completely immoral, that's a recent evangelical concept projected onto the past.

Society as a whole did think abortions were immoral. And society as a whole was a lot more Christian back then too.

Thanks for the correction on the Chinese girl thing. Looking it up it is because boys are more valuable and they had a one child policy (because of overpopulation) and so girls were killed because if they could only have one child, they wanted a boy. But my main point remains, they killed their girl children.

[carpedm9587]

Society as a whole did think abortions were immoral. And society as a whole was a lot more Christian back then too.

Your historical sense is a bit off. There's a halfway decent article about historical attitudes about abortion here. In short, the issue has always been "when is it a human being?" For much of European and American history, "quickening" was the specified time (i.e., when the baby could be felt moving). But there have been other specified times over the years. The "at conception" may have been held by some at various times over the years, but it was not the most widely held view. That is a relatively recent shift (mid 20th century, as best I can tell).

This is not an argument for any particular position. As I've noted many times before, I believe life begins once both fertilization and implantation are complete.

[Sparko]

Your historical sense is a bit off. There's a halfway decent article about historical attitudes about abortion here. In short, the issue has always been "when is it a human being?" For much of European and American history, "quickening" was the specified time (i.e., when the baby could be felt moving). But there have been other specified times over the years. The "at conception" may have been held by some at various times over the years, but it was not the most widely held view. That is a relatively recent shift (mid 20th century, as best I can tell).

This is not an argument for any particular position. As I've noted many times before, I believe life begins once both fertilization and implantation are complete.

My God, you can't leave any statement alone can you? You have to nitpick it to prove someone wrong no matter what. I was talking about American Society in the middle and early part of the 20th Century before Roe v Wade. Do I absolutely have to clarify everything I say online with conditional phrases and time periods before you stop trying to figure out some niggling way to show me wrong? It's getting pretty aggravating, I have to tell you. At this point you and Roy are a toss up as to the worst nitpicker on tweb.


ETA: oh Wait. I DID qualify what I was talking about earlier:

Currently it appears our society thinks it is good to abort babies. But just 50 years ago we thought that was completely immoral and bad for society.

[carpedm9587]

My God, you can't leave any statement alone can you? You have to nitpick it to prove someone wrong no matter what. I was talking about American Society in the middle and early part of the 20th Century before Roe v Wade. Do I absolutely have to clarify everything I say online with conditional phrases and time periods before you stop trying to figure out some niggling way to show me wrong? It's getting pretty aggravating, I have to tell you. At this point you and Roy are a toss up as to the worst nitpicker on tweb.

I use language as precisely as I can. I find our current culture's habit of making gross over simplifications, the tendency to hyperbole (which Trump is the master of), and the unwillingness to look at hard data and use it to guide choices and views a sad commentary on how our society functions. It's also pretty dangerous to a form of government that is highly dependent on an "informed electorate."

ETA: oh Wait. I DID qualify what I was talking about earlier:

Actually, that was the point of my post. Your perception that only 50 years ago we thought abortion was "completely immoral and bad for society" is not accurate. It is true that before Roe vs. Wade, it was illegal. But there was a wide swath of society that did not hold that view, and wide distinctions throughout American history about when, exactly, a "fetus" became a "human being." What began to seriously change the discussion, AFAICT, was the science that made it possible to see the child in the womb.

[Sparko]

I use language as precisely as I can. I find our current culture's habit of making gross over simplifications, the tendency to hyperbole (which Trump is the master of), and the unwillingness to look at hard data and use it to guide choices and views a sad commentary on how our society functions. It's also pretty dangerous to a form of government that is highly dependent on an "informed electorate."



Actually, that was the point of my post. Your perception that only 50 years ago we thought abortion was "completely immoral and bad for society" is not accurate. It is true that before Roe vs. Wade, it was illegal. But there was a wide swath of society that did not hold that view, and wide distinctions throughout American history about when, exactly, a "fetus" became a "human being." What began to seriously change the discussion, AFAICT, was the science that made it possible to see the child in the womb.

And I disagree with you on that. But I am not going to get into an argument over something so inconsequential to my point to JimL. It's always a rabbit trail with you.

My point to JimL is that how can he claim to believe morality is "what's best for society" when society doesn't even agree on what's best for society? You just make my point even clearer. JimL believes in a objective morality. I asked him what if there was a society who believed that stealing was good for their society (say a society of pirates), would that make stealing "good"? He said no, not if everyone in the world thought stealing was good would stealing be good. Then he goes on to say it is "what's best for society" - not even seeing the contradiction there. How can morality be objective to the point everyone in the world can claim stealing is OK and good for society, and it not be moral? Who decides what is best for society? Which society? Which time period?

He can't answer that except by repeating the same contradictory theory of his.

For morals to be objective to the point that what anyone believes doesn't matter, there has to be an external objective standard of "good" that is being measured against.

[carpedm9587]

And I disagree with you on that. But I am not going to get into an argument over something so inconsequential to my point to JimL. It's always a rabbit trail with you.

My point to JimL is that how can he claim to believe morality is "what's best for society" when society doesn't even agree on what's best for society?

He can't. Jim is trying to cling to universal and absolute moral principles. That is not a sustainable position for all of the reasons cited in my previous posts on the subject.

You just make my point even clearer. JimL believes in a objective morality. I asked him what if there was a society who believed that stealing was good for their society (say a society of pirates), would that make stealing "good"? He said no, not if everyone in the world thought stealing was good would stealing be good. Then he goes on to say it is "what's best for society" - not even seeing the contradiction there. How can morality be objective to the point everyone in the world can claim stealing is OK and good for society, and it not be moral? Who decides what is best for society? Which society? Which time period?

This is, indeed, the problem with Jim's argument.

He can't answer that except by repeating the same contradictory theory of his.

For morals to be objective to the point that what anyone believes doesn't matter, there has to be an external objective standard of "good" that is being measured against.

Since morals aren't objective in the sense described here, I have no response to this observation.