Atheism! (1 Viewer)

[Cookie182]

Um, evolution does not tell us to not kill each other. Even our current relativistic morality says that killing is acceptable in certain situations, such as self defence.

I think I'm way out of my depth here, to be honest, and I am not ashamed to admit it. You lost me when you started talking about the philosophy of morality and right and wrong, which obviously are abstract concepts that can't necessarily be answered by what evolution has provided it - which I never implied. Morality itself is something we evolved to be able to live in social communities. Therefore I.. don't really understand the question?

Never having relied on a moral framework, however, you might as well be asking me to compare apples and oranges.

Silly example on my part, I admit it is confusing given that in certain situations you are correct, killing is acceptable.

I guess the confusing part is I'm talking in terms of evolution as though it is a "conscious system" with a mind, its merely a mechanism as you point out. I'm heading out of my depth as well, since you study science, I also accept you understand evolution better than I.

I think the crux of what I was trying to argue for was how, as an atheist, can we validate moral truths or what mechanism of philosophy do we adhere to in order to derive moral positions. You rightfully point out, these are abstract concepts and that is much the difficulty. As you say, we evolved these precepts to help us live together, yet at each and every moment we have used a philosophical system of thinking to help "work out" what the best way to live is.

Over the last 2000 yrs, the majority of thinking would have been the philosophy posed by the bible. With almost everyone believing in god, the logical validation of these truths was that they were the supposed commands of a divine entity, no questions asked. Of course, since the bible was written by men, it isn't uncanny that most of the biblical commands replicate the moral positions in which we hold innately today, those which would have slowly evolved over the last 100000-200000 yrs.

I think the position your coming from is that morality is simply the best way to live together and we know this in the best way all humans who have ever lived knew how- its within us already right now. Follow it.

I'm thinking along the lines that as these positions developed throughout history, what framework were they intially formed under to give them any validation- evolution seems to suggest a utilitarinist framework, ie don't steal as it put you at odds with the good of the group?This is what I mean by morality- a way of thinking about moral questions and attempting to derive at moral answers:

"You should do X because X correlates with the overall goal of Y which is validated because it is good for Z" as an example.

When we are faced with new ethical dilemmas today, especially those which arise with the presence of technology etc, from the atheistic P.O.V. I'm simply asking how do we approach them? If they are new questions, the answer won't be innate within us. We need a philosophical framework ie utilitarinism, moral objectivism, etc in order to evaluate them.

More so, since we don't appeal to a "god" as the finite source of what is "right" and "wrong" how should we go about evaluating these concepts? Or should we bother at all? Don't they exist in an absolute sense?

 

[Cookie182]

Scrap that, thank you, I just answered the question for myself

By typing all that, I was helping myself to learn...

Even with the problem of new moral dilemmas, the theist and the atheist face the same problem. The theist is only deluded in thinking they hold a divine answer when we know that it is false. Their precepts (as recorded biblically) are simply a replication of the moral framework we have developed so far (our innate system) and hence they hold no new answers to moral questions either.

This still doesn't help evaluate moral truths, yet really, morality is perhaps just an invention, a mere descriptor of these evolutionary precepts so far.

Right and wrong are then yet to be written for these new positions...

I guess though, this still doesn't invalidate my postion of what framework, in the moment, should we use to evaluate these situations when we face them?

 

[lolokay]

yes, evolution explains quite well why we have the moral beliefs, and behaviour we do, but does it tell us how we should behave? this is where we need an ethical framework, to base our actions on

happiness (i.e. any positive emotion/feeling/state of mind/etc.) is, i beleive, the thing which should be aiming for (utilitarianism, as your own happiness is no different that anyone elses)
how do we achieve happiness? well, a close look at our biology/etc. will help with this

ayn rand

I've only read a very short summary about her, but as far as I could tell, her moral objectivism actually means doing what's best for yourself (not something I would have associated with "objective"). doesn't sound (to me) like something worth looking into

 

[Kwayera]

I think it's a fallacy, actually, that we have operated under the "moral framework" or philosophy as posed by the Bible, as those have inherently been derived by.. what we had already evolved. It was taking cues from something we already developed (i.e. we didn't need to be told not to kill and not to steal as those were already inherent moralities - although religious morals tend to distort our natural ones in some circumstances). Therefore, any moral framework we come up with in an atheistic perspective won't be much different, because it's derived from the same set of, er, values. Therefore I don't really understand why you'd need a philosophical system of working out what is the best way to live.

I guess when we approach new ethical dilemmas, the best way for indivudals to do it would really be to trust our instincts.

 

[JClamp]

didn't you perform rather poorly in uni bio?

i performed mediocrely

didnt you perform rather poorly in uni chem?
derp

---

all athiests are as bad as like, religious ppl. agnostic is the way to go.

 

[Kwayera]

all athiests are as bad as like, religious ppl. agnostic is the way to go.

That assumes incorrectly that one can't be both.

 

[JClamp]

I think it's a fallacy, actually, that we have operated under the "moral framework" or philosophy as posed by the Bible, as those have inherently been derived by.. what we had already evolved. It was taking cues from something we already developed (i.e. we didn't need to be told not to kill and not to steal as those were already inherent moralities - although religious morals tend to distort our natural ones in some circumstances). Therefore, any moral framework we come up with in an atheistic perspective won't be much different, because it's derived from the same set of, er, values. Therefore I don't really understand why you'd need a philosophical system of working out what is the best way to live.

I guess when we approach new ethical dilemmas, the best way for indivudals to do it would really be to trust our instincts.

if you'd done any ethical philosophy you'd realise that any legitimate philosophers have the exact same view as you. they only enact the philosophical method in problematic cases, where as you say religious morals are in conflict with our changing instincts - abortion, capital punishment. no legitimate philosopher, or at least very few, debate over the wrongness of killing, for instance.

i was lambasted in NCAP for saying what you just said a few months ago, interestingly enough.

 

[Kwayera]

if you'd done any ethical philosophy you'd realise that any legitimate philosophers have the exact same view as you. they only enact the philosophical method in problematic cases, where as you say religious morals are in conflict with our changing instincts - abortion, capital punishment. no legitimate philosopher, or at least very few, debate over the wrongness of killing, for instance.

i was lambasted in NCAP for saying what you just said a few months ago, interestingly enough.

I haven't done any ethical philosophy (or any philosophy). I wish I'd been able to, though, as I can kind of sense that my knowledge in this area is very very basic.

 

[lolokay]

just because we've evolved a certain way of looking at things, and doing things, does not mean that it is "good" to behave this way
there is some correlation, yeah, but I think we need to look at the consequences of our actions on the larger scale, even if we have to go against our instincts

 

[JClamp]

I haven't done any ethical philosophy (or any philosophy). I wish I'd been able to, though, as I can kind of sense that my knowledge in this area is very very basic.

whats your opinion on the morals of pedophilia then? it's surely not an immoral action, according to your beliefs, but it's just something that ought to be frowned upon so we can PROTECT THE YOUNGLINGS.

Thats my opinion.
wots yours

 

[JClamp]

just because we've evolved a certain way of looking at things, and doing things, does not mean that it is "good" to behave this way
there is some correlation, yeah, but I think we need to look at the consequences of our actions on the larger scale, even if we have to go against our instincts

reason is a product of our evolution. reason is based on premises. we develop premises according to our biology. eg: killing is wrong.

you can disagree, but I know it and Nietszche knows it and so yr WRONG

 

[Kwayera]

whats your opinion on the morals of pedophilia then? it's surely not an immoral action, according to your beliefs, but it's just something that ought to be frowned upon so we can PROTECT THE YOUNGLINGS.

Thats my opinion.
wots yours

Um. No? I would say it's an immoral action according to my beliefs.

Lol whut?

 

[lolokay]

well, ok then. everything we do is a result of our evolution then, it doesn't really matter.

so now that we've evolved reason, we can use it to decide how best to act, within an ethical framework

 

[Kwayera]

That's what we're saying. We don't necessarily need an "ethical framework" - it's already there.

 

[JClamp]

Um. No? I would say it's an immoral action according to my beliefs.

Lol whut?

but to the person who's engaging in the action there's nothing wrong with it, amirite?

there's no self-evident moral code saying that pedophilia is wrong, unless the majority determines morals

in which case, imho, homosexuality is immoral

 

[lolokay]

I'm not too sure what you mean by that, "we don't need it - it's already there"

How do we know how we should act? We use reason/whatever to develop an ethical framework within which to act. What we see as the best cause of action is not necessarily the right one, so, with new information, it is changed to reflect a better cause of action.

maybe the terminology of "ethical", "moral" shouldn't be used? I don't know what the dispute is really over now

 

[JClamp]

well, ok then. everything we do is a result of our evolution then, it doesn't really matter.

so now that we've evolved reason, we can use it to decide how best to act, within an ethical framework

DERP!

no. not at all. there's no reason to work through an ethical framework but for the most troublesome of scenarios

 

[Kwayera]

but to the person who's engaging in the action there's nothing wrong with it, amirite?

there's no self-evident moral code saying that pedophilia is wrong, unless the majority determines morals

in which case, imho, homosexuality is immoral

You're assuming that society should determine the morality of sex between two consenting adults.

Pedophilia involves children, incapable of giving consent.

Don't be a dipshit.

 

[lolokay]

so.. we only consider ethics in situations like abortion and capital punishment?

yeah, maybe (I hope) the terminology is the problem here

*I see ethics as being questions like "how ought we behave?", "what is the good life to have?"

 

[Cookie182]

Yea, I prob wrote with great prolixity on subject I admitedly have to reconcile my knowledge further on (as Kwayera also admits).

My position is that I very much accept what Kway is saying in terms of evolution and morality, but incorporate the added factor that "lolokay" is highlighting, which is we are still left without a way of looking at philosophical "oughts".

Unless you concede, and inevitably limit, morality as contingent to an interdependent, evolutionary concept (which I doubt many serious moral philosophers would do) then you need to look at the broader picture and be able to say: why is our instincts correct? What objectively validates the moral decisions that we made in the past, which have evolved to become a part of us through time (also note the influence of memetics) and says that these positions are necessarily right? Indeed, the very nature of what is right and wrong can not be discerned through science. The limit of science begins when you accept that it is actually a subset itself of philosophy- a position on how best we can gain knowledge.