Question for Non-Believers

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Question to all those non-believers....

Without a "Supreme Being" how do you decide what is right and wrong? Do you merely just follow what others (who believe in absolute morals) believe in? Doesn't that seem somewhat strange?

Basically I'm asking... how do you know killing, stealing, etc. is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

To borrow from Moby's, Everything is wrong. ...In your post, I mean.

ONE
Another poster wrote in this thread "The human brain is designed by evolution to make moral judgments just like it's designed to make judgments about sexual attractiveness." But this is not exact!

There is no evidence of any kind of "design", intelligent or otherwise (our understanding of intel might be ridiculous in cosmic terms, for all we know) behind the grand scheme of things. We mistake complexity for intelligence, something that would render Fritz 9.0 intelligent. Our brains are complex (we cannot fathom yet their workings) but the fact that we make moral judgements does NOT mean that we would definitely, necessarily, at some point in time make moral judgements.

To simplify: If, a hundred thousand years ago, an outside observer possessing more knowledge of math and anthropology than humans ever had, was watching the process of evolution on Earth, and he was watching [censored] Sapiens starting to take his first tentative steps, he could NOT predict, not in any kind of deterministic manner, that the creature [censored] Sapiens would one day make "moral judgements". He could predict that Man would probably evolve into one smart mo-fo, but not one that would make "moral choices". Nothing as such was in the cards. Nothing is in the cards even now.

TWO
We have created morality. By intelligent/intellectual endeavours and (loud drum roll) choice.

Humanity evolves like a half-blind flock, in mass movements across timelines and geography, and across the landscape of ideas. We are making individual choices, more freely or less freely than we imagine. (We cannot even know yet the extent to which the chemicals dictate choice.) But, the fact remains that, in general, it is us that have made the choices that took us out of the caves, our of the sacrifice temples, and now out of the churches. The very fact of us making the choice means that "the beautiful room is empty", which is a premise scary enough to render religion necessary, practically inevitable.

When you are belittling the example of others in our making a moral choice, you are mocking the very way human evolve and progress.

THREE
When all is said and done, it is better to be making one's own choice, just as our Athenian ancestors practiced, of our own will, rather than to have a "choice" imposed by some higher authority! What much joy can a slave take from obeying his master?

God instructs Abraham to kill his son Isaac, because this would prove Abraham's loyalty to a higher authority (an authority in everything, from cosmic engineering to morality). And Abraham obeys, the poor dumb f*ck.

The anti-Abraham stance, the true humanist stance, would be to receive such a message from the "carriers of the higher authority" and then make a choice on the basis of one's own free will and, specifically, on the basis that the very existence of that "higher authority" is not an undeniable fact. Hence, human morality. (Not the higher authority's morality, but human morality.)

I know some folks compare the two sets of moralities, god's and humans'. One morality is seemingly weak, arbitrary, with shaky foundations (us), while the other is seemingly strong, clear and with lots of guarantees -- hell, it's carved in stone! People compare the two moralities (which do not necessarily contain mutually exclusive arguments) just like they compare the power held by a lonely sheriff and the whole FBI.

But the line to the Bureau has been dead for a hundred and fifty years, folks.

FOUR
Prometheus challenged the gods and stole the fire. Ever since, we are alone, with the fire inside us, travelling at an ever accelerating, dizzying speed towards an unknown destination, if there is one, and seeing only a couple of meters ahead of us at any time. At any time, we can take many wrong turns (which some will blame on the giher authority's wrath or plans), every which one can plunge us into catastrophe or regression to childhood or worse.

A fascinating, glorious, scary, totally strange trip.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]


Basically I'm asking..how do you know killing, stealing, etc. is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]



We don't avoid "bad things" because of some inert moral. We do whatever is in our best interest, period. To answer your question, I most likely won't kill anyone because there are very few situations where that would be in my best interest.

Bluffthis' response links to a post where i expressed most of my views on this subject, but i'd like to add another interesting example to further illustrate this point.

Lets say you were to offer me some amount of money to have my father instantly die. Now, I would only refuse your offer because there is no monetary value that can provide me with the happiness that my father does. Not because of some moral!

If, for example, my father does not provide me with happiness, perhaps he molested me or something, then, maybe some monetary value would make me happier than my father's presence in my life. Therefore, under these circusmtances, i would accept your offer.

Futher, lets say there is a neutral figure involved. For example, lets say that you would pay me some amount of money to have a person to whom i have no association with be instantly killed. Someone who neither positively or negatively impacts my life. So, assuming there are no other reprucssions to accepting the offer (i.e. may impact society in a way that negatively effects me), and i felt that a specific monetary value would prove to make my life happier than that person's existence, i would accept your offer.

Simply put, anytime i equate the value of X (happiness) to be more worthy than the value of Y (happiness) I will surely choose X, regardless of any morals.

[bronzepiglet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Basically I'm asking..how do you know killing, stealing, etc. is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]



We don't avoid "bad things" because of some inert moral. We do whatever is in our best interest, period. To answer your question, I most likely won't kill anyone because there are very few situations where that would be in my best interest.

Bluffthis' response links to a post where i expressed most of my views on this subject, but i'd like to add another interesting example to further illustrate this point.

Lets say you were to offer me some amount of money to have my father instantly die. Now, I would only refuse your offer because there is no monetary value that can provide me with the happiness that my father does. Not because of some moral!

If, for example, my father does not provide me with happiness, perhaps he molested me or something, then, maybe some monetary value would make me happier than my father's presence in my life. Therefore, under these circusmtances, i would accept your offer.

Futher, lets say there is a neutral figure involved. For example, lets say that you would pay me some amount of money to have a person to whom i have no association with be instantly killed. Someone who neither positively or negatively impacts my life. So, assuming there are no other reprucssions to accepting the offer (i.e. may impact society in a way that negatively effects me), and i felt that a specific monetary value would prove to make my life happier than that person's existence, i would accept your offer.

Simply put, anytime i equate the value of X (happiness) to be more worthy than the value of Y (happiness) I will surely choose X, regardless of any morals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I applaud your candor and logical consistency (despite not coming to the same conclusions myself). I simply do not understand when people say that god is irrational, yet contend that morals are rational. With the arguments of god not being able to be observed, measured, etc. the same things are true of morals.

The choice will typically be both or neither.

[David Sklansky]

"Without a "Supreme Being" how do you decide what is right and wrong."

You are repeating a Not Ready Post and I'll answer it the same way. We'll see if you can add something he didn't.

Basically I said "OK you can't. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility of a supreme being."

And this time I'll add "Suppose there were only animals. Now it is certain that there is no intrinsic right or wrong for them since they can't understand God's commandments. Does that decrease the possibilty that a supreme being created them?

[usmhot]

"We don't avoid "bad things" because of some inert moral. We do whatever is in our best interest, period. To answer your question, I most likely won't kill anyone because there are very few situations where that would be in my best interest."

And indeed the logic is even more subtle and far reaching.

There have been times in our history when murder was far more commonplace and far less 'regulated'. In other words, there have been times when the morals of killing were not as extreme as now. But, we moved on from those times, mostly for purely pragmatic reasons.

First, if there is no 'regulation' of murder then it is far more likely that I will be murdered - just on the numbers alone. If I live amongst 1000 people, and there's no reason for me not to be murdered then there is a very high probability that I will be.
So, I choose to find a way to agree with those 1000 other people that nobody should be murdered, to decrease the chances that I will be murdered.

More subtly, apart from finding a way to 'regulate' murder the alternative is for me to wipe out the others to improve my chances. But in wiping out the others I expose myself to a much higher chance of being murdered - so that's not really an option.

Even more subtly, the death of one of my loved ones would cause me grievous pain. So, if I live in a family of 10 people and murder is 'unregulated' then there's a very high chance that I will have to face that grievous pain.
So, I choose to find a way to agree with those 1000 other people that nobody should be murdered, to decrease the chances that I will face that pain.

Even more subtly. Human society evolved because it was to our mutual benefit that each person specialised in some specific endeavour that benefited the survival of the group. Specialising for an individual became viable because even though it meant taking attention away from other endeavours that were necessary for survival those endeavours were being carried out by other specialists - to mutual benefit. BUT, in this case, the murder of someone who is meeting some specific need of mine that I am relying on is bad for me.
So, I choose to find a way to agree that nobody should be murdered, to decrease the chances that I will lose an essential survival skill.

'Morals' is just the word we use to describe the underlying agreements that we have made for those pragmatic reasons.

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]
Without a "Supreme Being" how do you decide what is right and wrong. Do you merely just follow what others (who believe in absolute morals) believe in? Doesn't that seem somewhat strange?

[/ QUOTE ]

The implication of this post is that we would follow a supreme beings will without question. For many of us this is simply not going to happen.

If a supreme being said (via the holy book, whatever) "you shall beat down the women and the Jews", then would tham seem to be a moral stance to you?

Morals don't come from some dictum on high. They come from a sense of empathy for our fellow man and a desire to see those around us live in such a way that we are not subject to some horrible fate.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So, chezlaw or anyone else, I'd like to see something that defends the belief that murder is "wrong" (in a strictly moral sense - no societal pragmatism) and that holding such a belief is rational.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said murder is wrong, just that its not inconsitant to not believe in god and to believe murder is wrong.

Murder is normally taken to mean something like wrongful killing so its leans towards being wrong by definition. But unless its by definition I do not think it makes sense to claim moral beliefs are irrational or rational.

chez

[K C]

I really need to get in this one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Simply put, we can derive codes of ethics, and indeed have, without the assistance of religion. As a matter of fact, I'd much prefer ones based on things like rationality than the perhaps misguided folk who claim that God spoke to them. Nowadays these people would be ridiculed and put on medication [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

KC

[Piers]

It amazes me how so many people have the same blind spot as you. It is really not difficult.

[ QUOTE ]
Without a "Supreme Being" how do you decide what is right and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

One has a hard wired internal process that determines right and wrong. To not have such would in my opinion be a mental illness.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you merely just follow what others

[/ QUOTE ]
Ones inbuilt process for determining right and wrong can be influenced by others, especially during childhood, but also times of stress or personal upheaval.

[ QUOTE ]
Basically I'm asking..how do you know killing, stealing, etc. is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don’t kill and steal because I don’t want to. Same reason I did not have a bowl of sand for breakfast.

What disturbs me is people who believe that they do not kill or steal because of a belief in retribution by some God.

It suggests that they either are unable to think rationally about the situation and their own motives or have a mental illness. If they lost their belief they would become dangerous members of society (or conversely.)

I suspect for most who share your confusion, the problem is an inability to think rationally about the issue. I certainly hope so, but I could be wrong, it can be difficult to empathise with people who minds seem to work so differently to mine.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't say because it's against the law, because throughout history, there have been some laws that may seem right at the time, but in the absolute sense are wrong (example Nuremberg Laws).

[/ QUOTE ]

To only be prevented from “killing and stealing” by a ‘legal system’, is just as worrying as needing a religious belief..

[ QUOTE ]
Question to all those non believers....

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-believers?

1) Absolute moral laws.

2) Existance of God.

3) Life after death.

The above three always seem to be linked. They are independent concepts. No God is needed for life after death, just that the sort of person who needs a belief in one, normaly needs a belief in the other.

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
Without a "Supreme Being" how do you decide what is right and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
A brain and a conscience.

Someone who can't explain why killing, stealing etc is immoral/wrong without invoking God scares me far more than any atheist.