Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Science of Morality
Collapse
X
-
The arguments I make for morality are not generally disagreed by Christians, we come to similar conclusions. The difference is Christians argue it only matters if God exist, or as atheist see it, It only matters if you are rewarded for acting morally or punished for acting immorally.
Comment
-
Originally posted by AlecWelsh View PostSo we should base on our understanding of morality on those who are already dead? That does not make any sense.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostNo. We should understand that morality is illogical when we remove God. There is no reason to behave morally or not when nothing at all matters in the long run. And there is no reason to treat humans differently than we treat any other species.
I disagree with your assertion in the first place. Morality stands on it's own or it doesn't exist. You do not get both.
Comment
-
Originally posted by AlecWelsh View PostThe arguments I make for morality are not generally disagreed by Christians, we come to similar conclusions. The difference is Christians argue it only matters if God exist, or as atheist see it, It only matters if you are rewarded for acting morally or punished for acting immorally."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by AlecWelsh View PostI am not sure what part is an opinion. Conscious beings suffer. The point of morality is to reduce suffering among conscious beings and that suffering is not an opinion or relative to individuals."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostI'm a Christian and I agree with what you claim is how atheists see it. Of course morality doesn't matter if there are no consequences. Just like everything else that has no consequences doens't matter. It's kinda the definition of "doesn't matter".Last edited by AlecWelsh; 09-03-2015, 08:33 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostYour claim that "the point of morality is to reduce suffering among conscious beings" is an opinion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by AlecWelsh View PostThe discussion of morality would be based on your actions and if they causes unjust suffering on conscious beings. Similar to making the right decisions to be healthy, you would simply make the right decisions to be moral.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by AlecWelsh View Post... what is good or moral for one person is different for someone else ... I ... argue that morality is based on the suffer[ing] vs well-being of conscious individuals that exist[s] on a continuum. Causing unjustified suffering amongaconscious individual[s] is the definition of an immoral action.
And what is a "conscious individual"? Do you just limit that designation to a (human) person; or do you follow Sam Harris and Michael Shermer (and I note that Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins have both used similar ideas and phrasing in passing), for whom the relevant meaning of "conscious individual" is a "sentient being" of any genus and species?
Harris looks like the most prominent modern exponent of the suffering-of-all-sentient-beings view -- a view which is very characteristic of traditional Buddhism, which means that if it is not to be regarded as equivalent to the equally mainstream traditional Buddhist religious views of karma, reincarnation, the motherless birth of the saint Padmasambhava as a youth upon a lotus leaf, and so on, it really needs to be justified as rational rather than merely asserted.
What I have not yet been able to work out so far from Harris' blogs or his "The Moral Landscape" book is his weighting system: is a foetus as sentient as an adult human, so that abortion is (usually or always) murder; if a fish is half as sentient as a a human adult -- and how does even a neuroscientist evaluate and score sentience levels -- should one human starve so that two fish might live? Should fishing be banned altogether? Do you eat meat?
What is your own weighting system to evaluate and score the "suffer[ing] vs well-being of conscious individuals that exist[s] on a continuum", and what's the methodology on which that weighting system is based?
Oh, and there's a whole can of worms in that simple idea of justified versus unjustified. I can justify letting Syrian refugees drown (if I am nasty enough); many in Western societies justify little poor relief or benefits.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWhy? What if causing unjust suffering to my fellow man gains me and my family or tribe more power and wealth?
Comment
-
Originally posted by AlecWelsh View PostIt is unlikely that happens without causing conflict. It is easier to work together through trading, economic gain. As social creatures causing enemies would create more problems than solve. You your family or tribe couldn't take from others and then hide yourself in a vacuum immune to retaliation.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Hayward View PostHmm, what is it that exists on a continuum: a continuum of suffering/well-being, or a continuum of consciousness?; or are both suffering/well-being and consciousness continuums?
And what is a "conscious individual"? Do you just limit that designation to a (human) person; or do you follow Sam Harris and Michael Shermer (and I note that Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins have both used similar ideas and phrasing in passing), for whom the relevant meaning of "conscious individual" is a "sentient being" of any genus and species?
Harris looks like the most prominent modern exponent of the suffering-of-all-sentient-beings view -- a view which is very characteristic of traditional Buddhism, which means that if it is not to be regarded as equivalent to the equally mainstream traditional Buddhist religious views of karma, reincarnation, the motherless birth of the saint Padmasambhava as a youth upon a lotus leaf, and so on, it really needs to be justified as rational rather than merely asserted.
What I have not yet been able to work out so far from Harris' blogs or his "The Moral Landscape" book is his weighting system: is a foetus as sentient as an adult human, so that abortion is (usually or always) murder; if a fish is half as sentient as a a human adult -- and how does even a neuroscientist evaluate and score sentience levels -- should one human starve so that two fish might live? Should fishing be banned altogether? Do you eat meat?
What is your own weighting system to evaluate and score the "suffer[ing] vs well-being of conscious individuals that exist[s] on a continuum", and what's the methodology on which that weighting system is based?
Oh, and there's a whole can of worms in that simple idea of justified versus unjustified. I can justify letting Syrian refugees drown (if I am nasty enough); many in Western societies justify little poor relief or benefits.
As argued by Michael Shermer in his book the Moral landscape... he discusses studies that show Animals hold similar neurophysiology's as humans do in the context of suffering,
"The Neural pathways of emotions, for examples, are not confined to higher-level cortical structures in the brain, but are found in evolutionary older sub-cortical regions. Artificially stimulating the same regions in humans and non human animals produces the same emotionally reaction in both." For the most part emotionally speaking humans and nonhuman animals have the same physical capabilities and therefore suffer and be included in the moral conversation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostReally? Is that not the history of mankind? Some people think the risk is worth it. So again, why is that wrong? The fact is you will be forever reduced to opinion. There is nothing else.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
589 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
137 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment