I walked out of church today.

[eric42434224]

I think it is very clear what is going on here, as it happens in other threads too.  There is more than one view on a subject.  In this case morals, and there are many different ways to think about them, but lets generalize them for this discussion into Objective and Subjective.  When asked about our subjective views, we give clear and logical answers.  The answers do not fit into the view of the person asking , who is clearly in the Objective camp.  This person then says our answers are not logical, for what I can see are only two reasons. 

In the first scenario, this person asking truly doesnt understand that the answers are logical as he cant remove himself from the mindset of objective morality, even in a hypothetical scenario, to see that in a morally subjective view, the answers are perfectly logical and valid. 

The second scenario is that the person is fully aware of subjective morality and what it entails, and is perfectly capable to understand how our answers are logical and valid within the framework of subjective morality.  This person then continues to re-ask questions and debate our answers to disprove our view and/or prove his.  The answers are logical withing the subjective framework...and not logical only withing the objective one, and I think this person fully knows that. 

I think the second scenario is happening here.  It is likely a waste of time to continue sharing our view as I dont believe our answers and opinions are being used to understand our view or position, and are only being used in an attempt to validate his own view, or somehow invalidate ours.  This person wants to win a debate, not have a discussion.

If that is not the case and I am mistaken, then I would suggest the person asking questions start accepting our answers as they are logical, and do fit into the framework of our belief of subjective morality....and stop trying to show how they dont fit into yours.  Your view is not necessarily "right" or "correct"...it may be for you and that is cool, but is obviously not the only view.

[Omega]

My, oh my, how the essential point has been missed:

On the one hand, you want to make value judgments like "murder is wrong," or "slavery is abhorrent," or "we have improved morally over this culture or that." Yet out of the other side of your mouth, you're affirming moral relativism. You have no transcendent anchor for these values and hence, you're lost in a sea of socio-cultural relativism.

[7StringedBeast]

My, oh my, how the essential point has been missed:

On the one hand, you want to make value judgments like "murder is wrong," or "slavery is abhorrent," or "we have improved morally over this culture or that." Yet out of the other side of your mouth, you're affirming moral relativism. You have no transcendent anchor for these values and hence, you're lost in a sea of socio-cultural relativism.

Yet that is exactly their point!  It's cultural relativism.  Morals are relative to the culture that you live in.  That is the point.

[Scheavo]

My, oh my, how the essential point has been missed:

On the one hand, you want to make value judgments like "murder is wrong," or "slavery is abhorrent," or "we have improved morally over this culture or that." Yet out of the other side of your mouth, you're affirming moral relativism. You have no transcendent anchor for these values and hence, you're lost in a sea of socio-cultural relativism.

Yet that is exactly their point!  It's cultural relativism.  Morals are relative to the culture that you live in.  That is the point.

Plus, what's his answer come down to? Listen to your conscious.

[eric42434224]

My, oh my, how the essential point has been missed:

On the one hand, you want to make value judgments like "murder is wrong," or "slavery is abhorrent," or "we have improved morally over this culture or that." Yet out of the other side of your mouth, you're affirming moral relativism. You have no transcendent anchor for these values and hence, you're lost in a sea of socio-cultural relativism.

You so completely missed the point.  You are doing exactly what I said you would.  You are trying to fit our subjective and relative morals into the framework of your own objective moral reality.  We do not say "murder is wrong" from any other viewpoint than our own.  Yes we make the judgement...that is exactly the point.  We make the judgement for ourselves.  We dont need an anchor....only ones dealing in absolutes and objective moralism need it.  Do you really not get it? 

[7StringedBeast]

Morals, to me, at least just come from social conditioning.  If you were raised in a culture where it was normal to kill left handed people and you never heard anything different, then that is your moral truth right there.  You would firmly believe that it was the correct thing to do.

[Omega]

Morals, to me, at least just come from social conditioning.  If you were raised in a culture where it was normal to kill left handed people and you never heard anything different, then that is your moral truth right there.  You would firmly believe that it was the correct thing to do.

In this worldview, morals are but an illusion; there would be no "good" or "evil" acts and one could not deem an act as "moral" or "immoral," "good" or "evil" and maintain a consistent worldview. Morals become completely arbitrary. Actions lose all moral dimension; no action would be either prohibited or obligatory. No moral difference would exist under this worldview between genocide and charity. Moral accountability would be as absurd as condemning or punishing someone for their preference in color.

It must be stressed that in an atheistic worldview, this (moral relativism; absurdism) is the only logical conclusion one can arrive at. In other words, if you are an atheist, moral relativism is logically concise with your worldview (we mustn't portray the atheist as a villain when in comes to morality but rather as the only logical outcome of the worldview he posses). That isn't the problem, though. The problem is that you do, in fact, assert moral relativism yet then go ahead and make moral claims on what is and isn't "moral" or "good" or "evil" when such words are meaningless in moral relativism.


If atheism is true, then life is really objectively meaningless, valueless, and purposeless, despite our subjective beliefs to the contrary. I'm not saying that atheists have no goals or purpose for living. On the contrary, life would be unbearable and unlivable without such beliefs. But given atheism, these beliefs are all subjective illusions. They are mere appearance of meaning, value, and purpose, even though, objectively speaking, there isn't any. There is no reason to not live a life of self-interest; living such a life would actually ultimately prove to be a smart decision.

In a world without objective moral values, who's to say whose values are right and whose are wrong? There can be no objective right or wrong, only our culturally and personally relative, subjective judgments. Think of what that entails! It means it's impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. It becomes impossible to praise generosity and love as good.

Somebody might say that it's in our self-interest to adopt a moral lifestyle. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. But obviously, that's certainly not always true. We all know situations in which self-interest runs smack in the face of morality. We end up being confronted, in Jean-Paul Sartre's words "the bare, valueless fact of existence." Moral values are either just expressions of personal taste or byproducts of biological evolution and social conditioning.

And the true irony here is that many of you say that there is no evil, no good - nothing but pitiless indifference - many of you are unbashed moralists; You vigorously condemn harassment of homosexuals, indoctrination of children by religions, murder, etc.

"There is at the bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference... We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being." - Richard Dawkins

"There is no objective reason why man should be moral, unless morality 'pays off' in his social life or makes him 'feel good.' There is no objective reason why man should do anything save for the pleasure it affords him." - Stewart C. Easton

"Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: 'I seek God! I seek God!'---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. 'Has he got lost?' asked one. 'Did he lose his way like a child?' asked another. 'Or is he hiding?' 'Is he afraid of us?' 'Has he gone on a voyage?' 'emigrated?'---Thus they yelled and laughed. The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. 'Whither is God?' he cried; 'I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?' - The Madman, Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[eric42434224]

Yup.  Scenario #2.  Dead on.

 

[Omega]

Yup.  Scenario #2.  Dead on.

 

?

[eric42434224]

Yup.  Scenario #2.  Dead on.

 

?

I think it is very clear what is going on here, as it happens in other threads too.  There is more than one view on a subject.  In this case morals, and there are many different ways to think about them, but lets generalize them for this discussion into Objective and Subjective.  When asked about our subjective views, we give clear and logical answers.  The answers do not fit into the view of the person asking , who is clearly in the Objective camp.  This person then says our answers are not logical, for what I can see are only two reasons. 

In the first scenario, this person asking truly doesnt understand that the answers are logical as he cant remove himself from the mindset of objective morality, even in a hypothetical scenario, to see that in a morally subjective view, the answers are perfectly logical and valid. 

The second scenario is that the person is fully aware of subjective morality and what it entails, and is perfectly capable to understand how our answers are logical and valid within the framework of subjective morality.  This person then continues to re-ask questions and debate our answers to disprove our view and/or prove his.  The answers are logical withing the subjective framework...and not logical only withing the objective one, and I think this person fully knows that. 

I think the second scenario is happening here.  It is likely a waste of time to continue sharing our view as I dont believe our answers and opinions are being used to understand our view or position, and are only being used in an attempt to validate his own view, or somehow invalidate ours.  This person wants to win a debate, not have a discussion.

[Omega]

Yup.  Scenario #2.  Dead on.

 

?

I think it is very clear what is going on here, as it happens in other threads too.  There is more than one view on a subject.  In this case morals, and there are many different ways to think about them, but lets generalize them for this discussion into Objective and Subjective.  When asked about our subjective views, we give clear and logical answers.  The answers do not fit into the view of the person asking , who is clearly in the Objective camp.  This person then says our answers are not logical, for what I can see are only two reasons. 

In the first scenario, this person asking truly doesnt understand that the answers are logical as he cant remove himself from the mindset of objective morality, even in a hypothetical scenario, to see that in a morally subjective view, the answers are perfectly logical and valid. 

The second scenario is that the person is fully aware of subjective morality and what it entails, and is perfectly capable to understand how our answers are logical and valid within the framework of subjective morality.  This person then continues to re-ask questions and debate our answers to disprove our view and/or prove his.  The answers are logical withing the subjective framework...and not logical only withing the objective one, and I think this person fully knows that. 

I think the second scenario is happening here.  It is likely a waste of time to continue sharing our view as I dont believe our answers and opinions are being used to understand our view or position, and are only being used in an attempt to validate his own view, or somehow invalidate ours.  This person wants to win a debate, not have a discussion.

Well this must obviously completely invalidate my post. Carry on people, and completely ignore my post.

[eric42434224]

It doesnt invalidate your post, nor is it meant to.  We understand your objective moral view, and respect it.  We dont try to show how it is wrong or doesnt work just because we dont subscribe to it.  My assessment just clearly illustrates your behavoir, thats all.  Carry on.

[ehra]

In this worldview, morals are but an illusion; there would be no "good" or "evil" acts and one could not deem an act as "moral" or "immoral," "good" or "evil" and maintain a consistent worldview. Morals become completely arbitrary. Actions lose all moral dimension; no action would be either prohibited or obligatory. No moral difference would exist under this worldview between genocide and charity.

So far, fine. This is, you know.... exactly what subjective means.

Moral accountability would be as absurd as condemning or punishing someone for their preference in color.

Uh.... no. Someone's preference in color has no meaningful impact on how they function in society, and most people in society will have no vested interest in or any reason to be concerned with someone's preference in color. On the other hand, someone thinking it's ok to murder people when the people around them don't DOES have a large impact in how they function with society, and the people around them have a damn good reason to be concerned with that person's moral view; mainly being that they don't want to be stabbed in the face.

Just because someone thinks morals are subjective doesn't mean they have to be accepting of or put up with everyone else's moral views. You're still a part of a society, and if you want to fit in with that society then you had better follow the rules they set. That doesn't make the accepted morals of that particular society objective, though. It just means that those are the behaviors members of that society have collectively agreed to put up with, and if you deviate too far then you're done.

[7StringedBeast]

wow I don't even know how to reply at this point.  I feel like I'm being trolled.

[the Catfishman]

I'm just going to post this again and ask Omega where he thinks I'm wrong with this reasoning:

look at it as unwritten social agreements that have developed over time (and are ingrained in us), nobody wants to live in a society where murder is looked upon the same way as playing a game of tennis.
And yes, these agreements are constantly changing although some core elements can be seen in every society on earth (even in (other) animals) even though they have been isolated from each other for thousands of years (things like; protecting/honouring your family, murder.. etc).

(see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_game_theory )

[Omega]

It doesnt invalidate your post, nor is it meant to.  We understand your objective moral view, and respect it.  We dont try to show how it is wrong or doesnt work just because we dont subscribe to it.  My assessment just clearly illustrates your behavoir, thats all.  Carry on.

I'm not describing a objective moral view; I'm describing a moral relativism view!

I'm not even arguing that you should subscribe to moral objectivism; I'm merely adequately describing moral relativism and how, if one affirms moral relativism, that person should live their worldview in a consistent manner.

We do not say "murder is wrong" from any other viewpoint than our own.  Yes we make the judgement...that is exactly the point.  We make the judgement for ourselves.

Think of what that entails! It means it's impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. It becomes impossible to praise generosity and love as good.

And what does this mean?

Stop making any and all moral claims on any social issue, action or opinion; doing so would be inconsistent with your worldview.

[Omega]

wow I don't even know how to reply at this point.  I feel like I'm being trolled.

It's okay. Just do what feels right.

[Omega]

Moral accountability would be as absurd as condemning or punishing someone for their preference in color.

Uh.... no. Someone's preference in color has no meaningful impact on how they function in society, and most people in society will have no vested interest in or any reason to be concerned with someone's preference in color. On the other hand, someone thinking it's ok to murder people when the people around them don't DOES have a large impact in how they function with society, and the people around them have a damn good reason to be concerned with that person's moral view; mainly being that they don't want to be stabbed in the face.

Just because someone thinks morals are subjective doesn't mean they have to be accepting of or put up with everyone else's moral views. You're still a part of a society, and if you want to fit in with that society then you had better follow the rules they set. That doesn't make the accepted morals of that particular society objective, though. It just means that those are the behaviors members of that society have collectively agreed to put up with, and if you deviate too far then you're done.

Whether it is an opinion or an actualized action it would not matter. Just because an action committed by an individual is resulting in another individual's death or endangering society, it would not matter because, according to your own worldview:

"Morals become completely arbitrary. Actions lose all moral dimension; no action would be either prohibited or obligatory."

Vested interest in a society would be completely illusory and purposeless.

In this worldview, morals are but an illusion; there would be no "good" or "evil" acts and one could not deem an act as "moral" or "immoral," "good" or "evil" and maintain a consistent worldview. Morals become completely arbitrary. Actions lose all moral dimension; no action would be either prohibited or obligatory. No moral difference would exist under this worldview between genocide and charity.

So far, fine. This is, you know.... exactly what subjective means.

So the murderer isn't really doing anything wrong; he is merely acting out of fashion or in a way that merely inconveniences other individuals. So if a murderer kills someone who either doesn't inconvenience you or kills someone whose death would be convenient to you, there would be no good reason to end his life for the sole reason of simply being a nuisance.

[Omega]

I'm just going to post this again and ask Omega where he thinks I'm wrong with this reasoning:

look at it as unwritten social agreements that have developed over time (and are ingrained in us), nobody wants to live in a society where murder is looked upon the same way as playing a game of tennis.
And yes, these agreements are constantly changing although some core elements can be seen in every society on earth (even in (other) animals) even though they have been isolated from each other for thousands of years (things like; protecting/honouring your family, murder.. etc).

(see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_game_theory )

I agree that no one wants to live in a society where murder would be a commonplace event (and that could not be objectively condemned as wrong or immoral). Yet this is a society that moral relativism would entail. The moral relativist ultimately does not act consistently with his worldview. If so, the moral relativist would not be concerned in the least with moral dilemmas (abortion, murder, genocide, discrimination, etc) unless these actions somehow directly inconvenience him in some direct manner.

So how would this theory handle the dilemma of self-interest vs morality? If I knew I could get away with killing someone whom I don't know or care about and steal their money, why shouldn't I? Because I would break some unwritten social contract? Why would that even convince me to not kill the man in the slightest?

All it would take to shatter a society of this type would be one simple individual who isn't at all concerned with society or of the consequences of his actions.

[the Catfishman]

So the murderer isn't really doing anything wrong; he is merely acting out of fashion or in a way that merely inconveniences other individuals. So if a murderer kills someone who either doesn't inconvenience you or kills someone whose death would be convenient to you, there would be no good reason to end his life for the sole reason of simply being a nuisance.

 your description there sounds exactly like the description of a soldier (omg valuing murder suddenly becomes subjective, the nerve..).

your determination to equal 'subjective morals'  to 'arbitrary morals' is ridiculous, the morals current civilisations developed can clearly be explained by the benefit they have on that society.... i'll scratch your back if you scratch mine... they are not random by any mean.

All it would take to shatter a society of this type would be one simple individual who isn't at all concerned with society or of the consequences of his actions.

aka a psychopath, who are present in every society at an almost fixed percentage.. 

edit: you probably don't accept evolution, but these characteristics of behaving to fit into a group/society are deeply ingrained in our behaviour, so you simply knowing you would get away with it is not enough to do it... because again this would work against the evolutionary force... if you have two isolated societies, one where people would murder if they had the chance or one where people would not murder when given the chance.... which of these two would be more fruitful/successful? 

I can also turn the question around, do you think animals have morals because they care for their family members? Do you think animals are consciously protecting their young? or is it something which is ingrained in them? (through years of evolution leading to offspring with similar traits)?

[Omega]

So the murderer isn't really doing anything wrong; he is merely acting out of fashion or in a way that merely inconveniences other individuals. So if a murderer kills someone who either doesn't inconvenience you or kills someone whose death would be convenient to you, there would be no good reason to end his life for the sole reason of simply being a nuisance.

 your description there sounds exactly like the description of a soldier (omg valuing murder suddenly becomes subjective, the nerve..).


your determination to equal 'subjective morals'  to 'arbitrary morals' is ridiculous, the morals current civilisations developed can clearly be explained by the benefit they have on that society.... i'll scratch your back if you scratch mine... they are not random by any mean.

Subjective = arbitrary

Somebody might say that it's in our self-interest to adopt a moral lifestyle. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. But obviously, that's certainly not always true. We all know situations in which self-interest runs smack in the face of morality. We end up being confronted, in Jean-Paul Sartre's words "the bare, valueless fact of existence. Moral values are either just expressions of personal taste or byproducts of biological evolution and social conditioning."

This means that, although the murderer may act inconveniently against society, he's not truly doing anything wrong because according to moral relativism, "morals become completely arbitrary. Actions lose all moral dimension; no action would be either prohibited or obligatory."

    All it would take to shatter a society of this type would be one simple individual who isn't at all concerned with society or of the consequences of his actions.

aka a psychopath, who are present in every society at an almost fixed percentage..

edit: you probably don't accept evolution, but these characteristics of behaving to fit into a group/society are deeply ingrained in our behaviour, so you simply knowing you would get away with it is not enough to do it... because again this would work against the evolutionary force... if you have two isolated societies, one where people would murder if they had the chance or one where people would not murder when given the chance.... which of these two would be more fruitful/successful?

Here is another problem with moral relativism: if a person's morals are completely subjective and arbitrary, if all actions ultimately have no moral dimension, if no action is prohibited or obligatory, then why categorize a person who chooses to believe that murder is moral (because, remember, all "morals" are completely arbitrary and subjective in moral relativism) as a psychopath at all rather than simply another individual with relative moral values? In moral relativism, one cannot condemn or praise any action, belief or opinion because in the end, there is "no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference... We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being." - Richard Dawkins



It should be made clear, again, that I am not critiquing moral relativism (although I obviously disagree with it). I am merely expressing what moral relativism naturally entails and also stressing that many of you who do embrace moral relativism are simply not living or acting consistently with your own worldview.


And, yes, I accept evolution...

[7StringedBeast]

Why can't you grasp that it is CULTURAL relativism.  You can personally believe murder to be wrong.  If society as a whole agrees with you, then that is a moral that the society shares.  The reason our society views murder to be wrong is because we have empathy and we feel sadness at the loss of life.  We don't like the pain that having someone murdered brings.  Therefore in our society (being the US let's say) murder is morally wrong according to our society.  This feeling has developed over time.

This isn't arbitrary.  But it can be subjective.  Others in the society might not think murder is wrong.  And if they then commit murder, they are persecuted by society and hopefully removed from society.

[the Catfishman]

Here is another problem with moral relativism: if a person's morals are completely subjective and arbitrary, if all actions ultimately have no moral dimension, if no action is prohibited or obligatory, then why categorize a person who chooses to believe that murder is moral (because, remember, all "morals" are completely arbitrary and subjective in moral relativism) as a psychopath at all rather than simply another individual with relative moral values? In moral relativism, one cannot condemn or praise any action, belief or opinion because in the end, there is "no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference... We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being." - Richard Dawkins

We categorise a person who believes that murder is moral as 'wrong'  because it goes against the grain of the rest of society who developed a moral where murder is not accepted.

I think you keep arguing semantics because your definition of 'wrong' is suppose to be an absolute 'wrong'... while in my view there is no absolute 'wrong', it differs between society/species/worldview.



(and I'm definitly acting according to my own worldview.. you are just not willing to understand it  )

[Omega]

Here is another problem with moral relativism: if a person's morals are completely subjective and arbitrary, if all actions ultimately have no moral dimension, if no action is prohibited or obligatory, then why categorize a person who chooses to believe that murder is moral (because, remember, all "morals" are completely arbitrary and subjective in moral relativism) as a psychopath at all rather than simply another individual with relative moral values? In moral relativism, one cannot condemn or praise any action, belief or opinion because in the end, there is "no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference... We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being." - Richard Dawkins

We categorise a person who believes that murder is moral as 'wrong'  because it goes against the grain of the rest of society who developed a moral where murder is not accepted.

I think you keep arguing semantics because your definition of 'wrong' is suppose to be an absolute 'wrong'... while in my view there is no absolute 'wrong', it differs between society/species/worldview.



(and I'm definitly acting according to my own worldview.. you are just not willing to understand it  )

You assert there is no wrong, yet then go on to claim that a certain action is wrong.

And would it even matter if a majority of society deems murder as wrong? No. For example, the Nazis thought that genocide of Jews, etc, was moral or acceptable. That would simply mean that anyone in that society who didn't think that genocide of Jews, etc, was immoral or unacceptable would be deemed as immoral by the rest of society. To illustrate this in another example, imagine a society where child rape was considered moral by the majority. That would simply mean that anyone who considered child rape to be immoral would themselves be categorized as immoral by the society!

So we are left with the same problem that moral relativism imparts; people making moral claims and judgments where morality is non-existent.

[Scheavo]

If you accept evolution, than social moral evolution is simply an extenuation of that.

And "subjective" is misleading, "perspective" is much more appropriate, as it is something we can all understand. From the same perspective, people agree, and there is consistency - thus it is not arbitrary. At the same time, this means you have to have the same perspective, and differing perspectives disagree - thus, there is no objectivity.

[orcus116]

If atheism is true, then life is really objectively meaningless, valueless, and purposeless, despite our subjective beliefs to the contrary. I'm not saying that atheists have no goals or purpose for living. On the contrary, life would be unbearable and unlivable without such beliefs. But given atheism, these beliefs are all subjective illusions. They are mere appearance of meaning, value, and purpose, even though, objectively speaking, there isn't any. There is no reason to not live a life of self-interest; living such a life would actually ultimately prove to be a smart decision.

I'm a little confused here. I understand your reasoning to a point but what constitutes a meaningful life full of value and purpose?

[ehra]

Vested interest in a society would be completely illusory and purposeless.

Not at all. Humans work better in groups. At the very least, being a part of a group/society offers security and safety that you can't provide yourself on your own. Even wild animals have a vested interest in belonging to a pack.

edit:

So the murderer isn't really doing anything wrong; he is merely acting out of fashion or in a way that merely inconveniences other individuals. So if a murderer kills someone who either doesn't inconvenience you or kills someone whose death would be convenient to you, there would be no good reason to end his life for the sole reason of simply being a nuisance.

No, because he's shown that he's willing to end other peoples' lives. Doesn't matter if he did it just because "no one else would care or be affected by it," why would the other people want to potentially risk their lives trusting someone that already broke one of the group's moral boundaries?

Not to mention that we're not even necessarily talking about a death penalty.

edit2:

So we are left with the same problem that moral relativism imparts; people making moral claims and judgments where morality is non-existent.

Now you're trying to change the argument. The discussion is about whether morality is objective or subjective based on each person's views/perspective, not if it's non-existent.

[Omega]

If atheism is true, then life is really objectively meaningless, valueless, and purposeless, despite our subjective beliefs to the contrary. I'm not saying that atheists have no goals or purpose for living. On the contrary, life would be unbearable and unlivable without such beliefs. But given atheism, these beliefs are all subjective illusions. They are mere appearance of meaning, value, and purpose, even though, objectively speaking, there isn't any. There is no reason to not live a life of self-interest; living such a life would actually ultimately prove to be a smart decision.

I'm a little confused here. I understand your reasoning to a point but what constitutes a meaningful life full of value and purpose?

Well in atheism / moral relativism, that is chosen by the individual and so is completely arbitrary.

If there is no God, then our lives are not qualitatively different from that of an animals'. If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies, then what ultimate meaning can be ascribed to life? Does it even matter whether man exists at all? An individual's life may be important relative to only certain other events, but what is the ultimate significance of any of those events? If everything is doomed to death, then what does it matter that you influenced anything? Man is no different than animals for their end is the same. The same blind cosmic process that coughed man up will eventually swallow man whole again. Because he ends in nothing, man is nothing. And if life inevitably ends at the embrace of death, then what does it matter whether you lived as a Hitler or as a saint? Since our destiny is in the end unrelated to our behavior, then why not live as one pleases? If we are just a freak accident of nature, then the universe has no meaning. So an individual simply gives the universe an illusion of meaning. But then, who's to say which meaning is right, if all are relative?

Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when somebody says 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction. All deeper meaning is illusory. - Michael Ruse, Evolutionary Naturalist, Atheist.

[orcus116]

Great, but that still doesn't answer my question.

[Omega]

Great, but that still doesn't answer my question.

"Well in atheism / moral relativism, that (a meaningful life full of value and purpose) is chosen by the individual and so is completely arbitrary (and illusory)."

[orcus116]

I meant more what is your definition of a meaningful life full of value and purpose. From your side, not the arbitrary/athetistic/illusory whatever you want to call it side. Clearly you have your "correct" answer in mind.

[eric42434224]

[Omega]

I meant more what is your definition of a meaningful life full of value and purpose. From your side, not the arbitrary/athetistic/illusory whatever you want to call it side. Clearly you have your "correct" answer in mind.

If one believes in God, afterlife and objective moral values (me), then the ultimate purpose of life would, very fundamentally, be to lead a life as morally as possible in order to ensure a desirable afterlife.


Specific goals would then vary from person to person, which would no doubt include devoting time and effort to the betterment of the fellow man, forging meaningful relationships with other fellow human beings, having a family, having children, etc.

[the Catfishman]

And would it even matter if a majority of society deems murder as wrong? No. For example, the Nazis thought that genocide of Jews, etc, was moral or acceptable. That would simply mean that anyone in that society who didn't think that genocide of Jews, etc, was immoral or unacceptable would be deemed as immoral by the rest of society. To illustrate this in another example, imagine a society where child rape was considered moral by the majority. That would simply mean that anyone who considered child rape to be immoral would themselves be categorized as immoral by the society!

Yup, I agree expect that you answer your own question with 'no' while it should be yes, it does matter whether society deems murder wrong, that's where our morals come from.. our cultural/evolutionary background and that's where we judge people by... so it does matter what 'society' thinks.

If there is no God, then our lives are not qualitatively different from that of an animals'. If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies, then what ultimate meaning can be ascribed to life? Does it even matter whether man exists at all? An individual's life may be important relative to only certain other events, but what is the ultimate significance of any of those events? If everything is doomed to death, then what does it matter that you influenced anything? Man is no different than animals for their end is the same. The same blind cosmic process that coughed man up will eventually swallow man whole again. Because he ends in nothing, man is nothing. And if life inevitably ends at the embrace of death, then what does it matter whether you lived as a Hitler or as a saint? Since our destiny is in the end unrelated to our behavior, then why not live as one pleases?  If we are just a freak accident of nature, then the universe has no meaning. So an individual simply gives the universe an illusion of meaning. But then, who's to say which meaning is right, if all are relative?

Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when somebody says 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction. All deeper meaning is illusory. - Michael Ruse, Evolutionary Naturalist, Atheist.

well... I agree with all of this expect for the bold part, where you suddenly ignore all evolutionary aspects in which our morals have developed (while you claim that you accept evolution.. ).

You assert there is no wrong, yet then go on to claim that a certain action is wrong.

Yes.. that’s what I’m saying, your definition of wrong is an absolute wrong, while I claim that a certain action can be wrong from our perspective but not wrong from someone else’s .

And "subjective" is misleading, "perspective" is much more appropriate, as it is something we can all understand. From the same perspective, people agree, and there is consistency - thus it is not arbitrary. At the same time, this means you have to have the same perspective, and differing perspectives disagree - thus, there is no objectivity.

this is also an important point.

[the Catfishman]

I meant more what is your definition of a meaningful life full of value and purpose. From your side, not the arbitrary/athetistic/illusory whatever you want to call it side. Clearly you have your "correct" answer in mind.

If one believes in God, afterlife and objective moral values (me), then the ultimate purpose of life would, very fundamentally, be to lead a life as morally as possible in order to ensure a desirable afterlife.

so how does this work out;

1.  you read about an afterlife thus you want to follow the rules that get you the ticket.

or

2.  you believe God has ingrained his set of morals into us.


If 1. how do you explain that people who have never heard of your God/Afterlife (for example the average Chinese farmer) still follow pretty much the same values as you? they still follow all ten commandments except for believing in God (which is an incredibly vain commandment anyway). Where did he found those values?

and with 2. I argue that these ingrained morals are a product of our evolutionary/cultural environment. Even monkeys roughly follow the ten commandments, is it because they want to have a cool afterlife? or does it make more sense that this arose as a beneficial strategy for them through thousands of generations?