No Gods and therfore no moral code

I am not necessarily saying that morality should take on a new meaning, only that we should reform the way that we look at moralistic values to suit ourselves. If you take the church or religion out of the equation, people will not feel the need to mindlessly follow religious doctrine or morals in fear that they will go to hell or whatnot.

I do not quite understand why morality has to be a social agreement. Why can we not decide on our own moral values to suit our wants and nees in life? To suit the way that we choose to live.

I am also not trying to impose these ideas on others, I simply read a text, and found it very intriguing, and thought-provoking. I have not totally accepted this idea yet, and I am trying to understand the truth a fallacious reasoning behind ideas like this. I thought that this would be a good place to discuss it, since there are so many people here, who I thought would understand the logic in this thinking of morality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A nice idea, but I like to watch a little thing called "the news" that tells me otherwise.

Besides, if there isn't a social standard for moral behavior to be passed from one generation to the next, or from one individual to another, what context would people have for what is "helpful"? What motive would they have? Altruism? Sorry charlie but

1) Altruism is learned, not instinctual. Compassion is one thing, but believing that helping is the "right" thing is something that is engendered in us, not something we are born with. And incidentally, the thing that teaches us to "help" and not "hurt" is the same social moral structure you would abolish.

2) Altruism isn't a real motive for good deeds anyway. Compassion for others is, but even compassion is something that must be nurtured...something that wouldn't happen as much as you would like to think (if at all) if we were brought up believing that what is "right" is "anything and everything that makes me happy." Not to mention that the belief that happiness and nobility are synonymous is HORRIBLY egocentric, and would result in a level of social selfishness we've only seen in a few hated individuals in our lives.

BTW, I see that you're handy with the quote button, but don't seem to be as good at reading for comprehension...the answers to your questions and qualms with my posts are in the same posts you chose to quote. If you're not going to take context into account, you shouldn't be quoting people anyway.

Careful, buddy. You're starting to post like Nico.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Walker,

I do not understand the distinction you are trying to make between the interpretation of morality in ways beneficial to the group and the creation of moral “action and behaviour”. It seems to me that the latter cannot happen without the former—at least in the practical sense you assert.

No?


Altec,

I am not sure how you define “meaningless”, but I disagree via my definition of meaningless. Perhaps you’d like to illustrate what you mean by “meaningless” and then show how religion and morality are meaningless.

Perhaps the perversions of law and religion attempt to manipulate the individual for the individual gains of the authorities in the religion or law. I do not think religion hinders you from living the life you want for the choice is yours to accept that religion. Also, by virtue of living in a society, the laws must necessarily apply to you. Any complaints must be addressed to your parents for having birthed you into that society.

The application has no bearing on the intent.

I believe that sometimes, law can be counterproductive, yes.


Spookz,

I have no “fascist tendencies”. Besides, even if I did, what would your point be?

It’s the protocol people; Spookz is on my dick and refuses to let go.

The evolution of new laws without a basis in morality (for instance, taxation, etc) is still predicated on the fundamental that a society requires laws to function.

Why is the fear of “divine retribution” any more fearful than that of man? The answer is quite simply that of authority. The divine if feared more is because of a belief that it transcends this.

Why does it mean nothing? Will you still attempt to refute simply on the basis of a feud you think you have with me, or will you make the attempt at refutation only when you have a credible counter to an argument represented? Every society must have at its core, a certain organization and accountability for threats to this organization. Perhaps you’d like to give an example of a society without any form of organization? Even egalitarian societies have their organization in the notion of egalitarianism.

You know that morality precedes religion for a fact because you hold that as your religious belief? Well, fine by me. It is a conclusion I reached without the authority of another, and I believe even though, the conclusion is logical, it is still not fact for I cannot prove it. Either way, to what petty end does your pitiful and ineffectual attempt at belittlement serve?

Perhaps you should define what “basic” morality is, for as it stands, the phrase lends itself to many interpretations that may be at odds with your original intent.

As it stands though, the conclusion you reach for an “instinctive” morality does not follow from the argument you provide. How does this “basic” morality that is “hardwired” into our “systems” ensure our survival as a species? This so called “altruism” between a parent and a child does not extend beyond the fundamental group—the family unit. There is no “hardwired” altruism towards other members of the society who are not part of said fundamental group.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because we all live in a house, a town, a country, with other people. Morals are in large part to do with regulating interpersonal conduct for the good of everyone. Now, if your a sadist who likes inflicting pain on others, your morality may let you do so. But if he picks on you, and you dont like it, what recourse do you have? Or what if your local shopkeeper fiddles the scales? Thats ripping you off, so it ends up being made illegal and so ends up as a moral, do not lie to and cheeat yoru customers. If you cant see why we cant all make our morals for ourselves (theres room for some of your moral code to be completely personal, thats what free countries are about, see homosexuality etc.) then you shouldnt be allowed in society.

 

Wow, it's getting to be everyone against me. Oh well.....

I dont understand how the news would dictate to you the situation that this work is proposing. The news tells you that people on a dialy basis inflict harm on others? I dont need the news to tell me that, but I would be willing to wager that the majority of us in this world would not be quite as sadistic or masochistic as you would imply in this statement.

We do not need morals or ethics to dictate what is helpful to another human being. It is a common sense of decency to help others who are in need, it has nothing to do with ethics or morals, since as I have pointed out earlier, the capitalish society would want us to believe that it is ok to stomp over the little man to ensure that we have more capitol.

Since it is compassion for other people that I am speaking of, it would not be abolished with moral code, as you seem to like to argue. Compassion has not been ingrained in us through morals, it is a basic instinct or feeling that we all act on.

We are already the most selfish creatures on earth: we destroy everything area that we live in, but if thats not enough we go back and make more room for ourselves by paving over acres and acres of beautiful forest. Is that enough? No! Now we must torture rabbits and other small creatures; burning their eyes out of their heads, so that we can find out if our shampoo is safe? I have a feeling that these things would change with the changing of moral code, abolishment oc capitalism, etc....

Just a quick question Walker, did you even read the original article that is linked in my first post? Many of the questions you pose and arguments you pose can be found in there. I am not the best at relaying all of this information, since I have not toally comprehended it all myself.

I dont see what this has to do with the argument at hand? Can you not handle a heated discussion without reducing yourself to bland insults toward me and not the idea that I pose? By the way, I have no idea who nico is, but maybe you should stop bashing on people....they may not have the "intellect" that you do, but that gives you no right to belittle another human being.

 

Meaningless means that something has no meaning or signifigance. With that out of the way, religion and morality provide a false security to people in our society. In my opinion it would be better to remove these false securities in order to move on with the betterment of society.

Very good point, i did not look at it this way. However, what about all of the people who are raised in a religion, and they simply do not have the courage to escape? That may seem lame, but think about it. All of thoe people who do not go to church, but still believe that there is a God. This isnt through rational thinking, but accepting the doctrine that their parents instilled in the early on. People are still scared of "God's rath" and therefore many of thm wil not turn from him for that sole reason.

 

The answer could well reside in your question.
My question is why do you automatically relate killing, raping and pillaging to 'no moral code'.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

hed

I have no “fascist tendencies”. Besides, even if I did, what would your point be?

oink oink?

It’s the protocol people; Spookz is on my dick and refuses to let go.

wrong end. i am on your ass. stop whining. just cross your frikkin t's and dot your frikkin i's

The evolution of new laws without a basis in morality (for instance, taxation, etc) is still predicated on the fundamental that a society requires laws to function.

you introduce an irrelevant point. further stating the obvious does nothing for the bogus assertion you made. besides why do you stop there?....."....a society requires laws to function."... these laws are meaningless without a moral basis

you are going round in circles.

Why is the fear of “divine retribution” any more fearful than that of man? The answer is quite simply that of authority. The divine if feared more is because of a belief that it transcends this.

random thought? you postulate a question and answer it too? quite the party in your brain eh?
why is a comparison of the fear factor even an issue? do you claim knowledge of the status in the societies you refer to?

transcends what? belief? divine? fear? make a frikkin attempt to give your sentences a logical structure or refrain from posting

Will you still attempt to refute simply on the basis of a feud you think you have with me, or will you make the attempt at refutation only when you have a credible counter to an argument represented?

do not concern yourself with my intentions.

Every society must have at its core, a certain organization and accountability for threats to this organization. Perhaps you’d like to give an example of a society without any form of organization? Even egalitarian societies have their organization in the notion of egalitarianism.

first, where is it i said that societies do not need organization? the very concept of a society implies organization. my distinction was the level of org. not every society requires a "meshing " of morality into their systems of belief in order to have "organization, accountability" for instance, the greeks and their polytheism. even a brief perusal of history will show that the gods did not give a damn how humans behaved toward each other.
morality was an issue for humans alone. (in general)

the "organization, accountability" in greek society was present without any "meshing of morality into religion ". neither was additional "authority" required to enforce the expected ethical conduct in greek society

why do you isolate this point ("organization, accountability") from the rest of your original assertion? ("meshing of morality into religion "

do you think i will not notice this deliberate attempt to divert attention?

You know that morality precedes religion for a fact because you hold that as your religious belief? Well, fine by me.

explain, step by step, how you reached this conclusion? since when has "to know" implied "to believe"?

it is still not fact for I cannot prove it.

heh
before eve looked up into the stars, she had to eat. can you extrapolate from that little point, why morality (codes of conduct) would precede religion?
or shall i draw pictures?

Either way, to what petty end does your pitiful and ineffectual attempt at belittlement serve?

i guess you can only wonder eh?

(Edited post title. -bd)

 

hed

before i proceed, i wish to toy with you...

Perhaps you should define what “basic” morality is, for as it stands, the phrase lends itself to many interpretations that may be at odds with your original intent.

what is my original intent? what are your "many interpretations"?

clarify.

(Edited post title. -bd)

 

Re: Re: No Gods and therfore no moral code

I did relate those things to the abolishment of moral code at first, but the more I think about it, I am beginning to believe that it is not the most pertinent thing that one should worry about when they tear their "moral wall" down.

The most pertinent thing is to adapt your new, personal moral code to the life that you want to live. I guess that as desires pull you in different directions, you need to decide which will only bring you instant gratification, and which will bring you life-long happiness. Get my drift?

 

Just curious, but am I the only person who is participating in this thread, that has taken this and actually pondered it? It almost seems that everyone has looked at the idea on a very basic level, and then tried to prove the fallacious reasoning behind the argument.

Does anyone out there agree with the idea posted in the original article?????

 

the complexity of your pondering is gonna take a while to digest. lemme get back to you on this.

ps: what would the basic and complex levels correspond to?

thanks
from your non-pondering spook

 

i wish i were a skateboarding punk rocker. life would be so simple.
does anybody dare contradict this?

 

I in no way was referring you you spookz, I was actually referring to the posters in this thread that seem to be running in circles about what I am saying. The people who keep asking for the same explanation over and over again, if you get my drift. Sorry for any misconception.


Why the blatant belittling? I have no problem with you, I was just hoping that someone could see the reasoning behind this way of thinking. Thanks for being a blatant ass-hole about my request though.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:bugeye:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

altec,

So how do morality and religion have no significance? Also, why are they "false securities"?

If they do not have the "courage" and still want to escape, then surely you can see why their weakness is not my concern.



Spookz,

Sorry mate. I do not want you licking my ass or being on my dick. A dildo and an inflatable doll should do the trick for you, no?

Why should I have to repeat every assertion I have already made? A society needs a self governing mechanism; a variant of which is a law. The law must have a basis in morality for otherwise, it is meaningless in the sense that the group will not believe the law to have their interests accounted for.

You are starting to irritate me with your singular intent of simple annoyance and not an actual discussion. The question and its subsequent response is framed as a response to this: the needs you mention have nothing to do with investing morality with a supernatural origin in order to enforce compliance within a society. the objective is fear of divine retribution. The comparison is provided to show you the hierarchy of authority. Divinity is the highest authority.

Transcends this-- reality.

Well I am getting bored. If you had a worthy counter to my argument, then at least this would be challenging. As it stands, I feel like I am lecturing a third grader on metaphysics.

It is said here:societies have ranged from the simple to the complex, from the formal to the informal. to claim that all societies require "organization, accountability" means nothing.
And also, do you even bother thinking through an argument before you made an assertion? For as of now, it is pretty clear that you do not. What is the relevance of your assertion that their gods "did not give a damn how humans behaved toward each other"? Their society had a moral basis. A list of books that will help: http://www.tcd.ie/Classics/courses/ssgreekmoralitybib.html Why does this seem so hard for you to grasp?

Are you a fool? The Greeks had morality and accountability through "laws" based on morality. Where did I say that all morality must be meshed in religion and that accountability and organization cannot exist without this meshing? Here is my original statement: I think there is pretty much one thing that still necessitates the need for a supposed universal morality, and that is LAW. Without a moral basis for law, law becomes meaningless. I also think that it is this need for organization, accountability, etc within societies that prompted the meshing of morality into religion-- to give it more authority. I think morality precedes religion.

OK. OK. I am convinced now that you are indeed a moron. I also said that the need for a higher authority in the enforcement of morality prompted the meshing of morality into religion.

You could at least pretend to have a working brain. You said I was stating the obvious and that you knew that morality preceded religion. You make your argument from a religious belief.

See:
wow. i guess it is possible that some might miss the fact that you are merely stating the obvious. however i do not simply think. i know that fact to be true. perhaps a demo of eve and her brood in e. africa developing a code of conduct?

Fool, perhaps I do not believe in Eve. And if Eve is meant to represent our early ancestors independent of the bible, the conclusion still cannot be reached as not enough context is provided.

For your own sake, I suggest you try better tactics; for at this point, you look the fool.

I see you are using the tactic of the weak: quietly withdrawing an assertion by not addressing the challenge. Forgotten this: As it stands though, the conclusion you reach for an “instinctive” morality does not follow from the argument you provide. How does this “basic” morality that is “hardwired” into our “systems” ensure our survival as a species? This so called “altruism” between a parent and a child does not extend beyond the fundamental group—the family unit. There is no “hardwired” altruism towards other members of the society who are not part of said fundamental group.??

Irrelevant. If you do not state what the hell you mean by "basic' morality I can assume whatever.

Here is one: morality is basic.
Here is two: the only basic morality is kill you unprovoked.
Here is three: the only basic morality is that fuck your sister but not your cousin.
...

 

They may have some signifigance for some, but the people that find these things signifigant obviously do not posess rational thought. The idea of God and religion is a hinderance to humans. Religion tells us that we cannot do what we please, because what we want is "sinful". If we do too many sinful things, God will do to us the unthinkable, things that even the most malicious human could not think up. That was we are all little puppets playing their game. I should not say that morality in its entirety has no signifigance, but the ideas that are considered "morals" that are instilled in us are insignifigant. These also hinder us from enjoying our short time on this earth. They also, in many aspects (especially along the social lines) instill harted for our fellow humans from an early age. They deprive us of compassion, so that we can live a "happy life" with lots of money and power. I am sorry, but to me this idea is complete bullshit.

Their weakness should be your concern however, since it is you that is affected by the "moral" standards that society and religion are forcing upon other people. You are most likely the one trodden upon so that your boss, or whoever, can get more wealth and power. We are all members of this system, and we need to re-program ourselves in a sense to once again have compassion for other people: not always be concerned with ourselves.

 

That is not the same as insignificant or meaningless.

This is illlogical. How do I get trodden upon through morality? Why should I care if the religion of another exploits or limits them? I am a member of their religion.


Anyway, I daresay that were we all allowed to do what we wanted, you'd most likely be dead. Morality is needed in every society.

 

Then what is it? In my opinion it is insignifigant because it is a hinderance. Is this bad reasoning?

You and the majority of people in this society (including me) are trodden upon by the morals that a capitalist society instills in us. It denounces compassion, and rather says that the maning to life is to gain wealth and power to make sure that you are the top dog. The average joe is the one being trodden upon, I am sorry if I pissed you off through my using you as an example.

And why would I most likely be dead? I agree that morality is needed, but a universal blanket morality is not needed. I am not proposing the entire demolition of the idea of morals, but the idea that we should build our morals personally so that we can live our lives the way that we want. Not the way that the social system tells you is right, or the way that God tells you is right, but the way that you feel is right....not only for yourself, but for the entire human race.

 

It is bad reasoning. It being a hinderance would in fact make it significant.

At first you were denouncing religion and now capitalism? Compassion is a moral of this society. Besides, by your take on being allowed to do whatever one wants, why should the morality of another bother you? Perhaps you should trod on them as well? Your argument seems disjointed. There are many differnt types morality-- all context driven. The average joe has the choice of which morality to align themeselves. You seem to be supporting moral subjectivity and yet you are so stuck on changing that of others to fit your mode. And no you did not piss me off.

Because were I to base my morality simply on what I wanted, I'd go on a beautiful rampage of looting and pillaging as I will many others-- selfishness. I don't live my life according to a religion; but I am sure that the some of the morals I have are seeped in religion. I live my life according to my morals, but within the constraints set by the society I live. For instance, that murder is bad must be accepted by society to protect society. Society must have a common morality to ensure its survival. This is simple and unescapable.

 

head

Sorry mate. I do not want you licking my ass or being on my dick. A dildo and an inflatable doll should do the trick for you, no?

dump the homoerotic fantasies and focus on the matter at hand

Why should I have to repeat every assertion I have already made? A society needs a self governing mechanism; a variant of which is a law. The law must have a basis in morality for otherwise, it is meaningless in the sense that the group will not believe the law to have their interests accounted for.

full circle. again i can assert that all laws do not require a moral foundation.

going on..."still predicated on the fundamental that a society requires laws to function."

am i disputing this? why do you bring this up as if it is being contested? your acknowledgement that laws can can evolve without morality as a basis can stand on it own without you trying to score points by introducing the obvious

You are starting to irritate me with your singular intent of simple annoyance and not an actual discussion.

your neuroses are irrelevant and not my concern.

The question and its subsequent response is framed as a response to this: the needs you mention have nothing to do with investing morality with a supernatural origin in order to enforce compliance within a society. the objective is fear of divine retribution. The comparison is provided to show you the hierarchy of authority. Divinity is the highest authority.
Transcends this-- reality.

excellent. you merely expand on my idea. do you think i am disputing the stated "hierarchy". why point that fact out?

Well I am getting bored. If you had a worthy counter to my argument, then at least this would be challenging. As it stands, I feel like I am lecturing a third grader on metaphysics.

of course. i pity the poor kids. you teach them chinese and tell them they are learning french. enlighten me as to why you think we are discussing the nature of reality. your confusion is astounding

And also, do you even bother thinking through an argument before you made an assertion? For as of now, it is pretty clear that you do not.

another admission of your lack of comprehension

What is the relevance of your assertion that their gods "did not give a damn how humans behaved toward each other"? Their society had a moral basis.

heh. the relevance is to show that contrary to your assertion that a functional society requires a religious basis for its moral practices. the greeks managed to do quite well without a divine origin of morality. greek gods were not held as a moral ideal to be emulated by humans

The Greeks had morality and accountability through "laws" based on morality.

show me where i said otherwise. again you appear to think i dispute this.
lemme try....the greeks lived in greece!

Where did I say that all morality must be meshed in religion and that accountability and organization cannot exist without this meshing?

the implication is without a "meshing of morality into religion", there is no " organization, accountability, etc ".

OK. OK. I am convinced now that you are indeed a moron.

whatever floats your boat

I also said that the need for a higher authority in the enforcement of morality prompted the meshing of morality into religion.

so? what's your point apart from the need to paraphrase my shit? ......... ("investing morality with a supernatural origin in order to enforce compliance within a society. the objective is fear of divine retribution.(spookz)")

secondly, did the greeks "need" a higher authority to enforce laws?
you assume, generalize and ignore evidence to the contrary. it is due to the advent of monotheism that found morality invested in divinity. previous to that ,gods were capricious and quite immoral. yet societies did just fine. perhaps better.

You could at least pretend to have a working brain. You said I was stating the obvious and that you knew that morality preceded religion. You make your argument from a religious belief.

not quite up to speed on anthropological jargon i see

Fool, perhaps I do not believe in Eve.

your beliefs do not concern me. enough with the bogus distractions

And if Eve is meant to represent our early ancestors independent of the bible, the conclusion still cannot be reached as not enough context is provided.

i guess you are gonna have to wait on me for the context then. never mind that here are entire fields of study that show the evolution of behaviours in animals. never mind that quite a few philosophers ascribe morality as instrinsic to our biology. remain in ignorance

For your own sake, I suggest you try better tactics; for at this point, you look the fool.

ahh if only fantasies could become real eh?

I see you are using the tactic of the weak: quietly withdrawing an assertion by not addressing the challenge.

heh. how many times do i have to tell you guys this aint the macdonald forums. my responses, my convenience. your eagerness to negatively characterize this is quite telling. more bogus distractions!

Irrelevant. If you do not state what the hell you mean by "basic' morality I can assume whatever.

social instincts (hard wired) provide the foundation to a basic morality. this bores me but a quick example. two animals fight. the loser exposes belly, the winner walks away. the group is preserved. this is an example of instinctive behaviour that promote the welfare and continuance of a group (family/society/species/nation). with the evolution of language. the instincts are verbalized and propagated thru that medium.

Here is one: morality is basic.
Here is two: the only basic morality is kill you unprovoked.
Here is three: the only basic morality is that fuck your sister but not your cousin.

that is so frikkin unecessary. sciforums has objective moral standards that are hardwired into its systems. you would do well to keep a note of that!