Since I am an atheist I view religions as human based moral systems. I would go even further and say that we judge the worthiness of religious morals using our own sense of morality. As we have seen in many threads, some people feel a need to have a larger justification for adopting a moral code, such as the belief that it is an objective morality based on an ultimate authority. However, I still think that those same people still use their own morality to judge religious edicts.
Since I am an atheist I view religions as human based moral systems. I would go even further and say that we judge the worthiness of religious morals using our own sense of morality. As we have seen in many threads, some people feel a need to have a larger justification for adopting a moral code, such as the belief that it is an objective morality based on an ultimate authority. However, I still think that those same people still use their own morality to judge religious edicts.
That isnât the case at all. Members of the same species will steal food from members of their own species. Members of the same species will kill each other, and hurt each other to show dominance. At the same time, seeing rudimentary moral systems in other animals does nothing to take away from what I said in the first place.
Of course itâs the case as Frans De Waal shows.
PS I know my argumentation, logic, intellect isnât up to yours by a country mile. But youâre missing something obvious to me. It doesnât matter how wrong I am, how badly I put it; Iâm right : ) Rhetorically. Evolution has made us capable of reaching for best-case morality. Full, egalitarian, utilitarian, social justice; equality of outcome for all, with all plenty returned to the commons from the kleptocrats who have it. Which weâll never grasp of course. Probably by a horrific fail. American pseudo-democratic capitalism is going for broke. Trump, the sock puppet of the Koch Bros. is back in three years. Nothing can stop that. We are that evolutionarily flawed. The group moral foundations are too strong for the individualizing ones. Except when our eusocial hive switch is thrown. And even then.
But, as with the postmodern deconstruction of meaning that cannot be reconstructed, meaning is demonstrably nonetheless common sensibly constructible for the masses and for the educated. So it is with individualizing morality. Care, do no harm. Be fair. Above ALL. Thatâs all. It doesnât matter that all stories are ultimately meaningless. That there is no such thing as objective reality. So what?
How does it FEEL? How does love feel?
PPS How can truly caring, being fair, increasing everyoneâs - thatâs everyoneâs - quantifiable quality of life be OBJECTIVELY immoral? Iâm sure you have a brilliant riposte. That misses the point.
PPPS Jesus did not mandate group moral foundations. He did not establish a religion. His brother James was the first to articulate that. The problem with the group foundations is that they tend to be utterly arbitrary. Especially as to what is sacred, traditionally. That one can kill in the name of the sacred, that the Sacred Himself would do that, is utterly deranged.
Ok, I see what you are saying. So in constructing a moral framework at 13 from principles of psychology, that was just my own need to put reasons behind the sense of morality I already had and that sense of morality would also have guided my choices in doing this.
Possible⌠makes good sense too.
So do you think this sense is biological or genetic? âŚor of course unknown is always a possible answer.
BUTâŚ
I do not agree.
Disagree. Accordingly viruses would have morality. Do really believe that?
Put it this way. Whatever you choose call, often all that is important is that those who behave correctly survive and those who donât do not survive. And if we learn a lesson from that, that is just learning not morality. And no you donât need some âought to learn what benefits survivalâ for morality because the same reasoning applies, where those who fail to learn also fail to survive. I suppose you can call that evolved âmoralityâ but I donât see any âis/oughtâ barrier there.
Your change of words from positive and negative to good and bad doesnât make this any more about morality than it was. Your claim is just nonsense. The impact on human health is measurable and morality plays no part in such a determination.
Here is an interesting (newly uploaded) discussion where Jordan Peterson is speaking with a Russian (through an interpreter) that I think should be of interest in this thread. It has a really slow start (first few minutes not even into the discussion at all). If you want to get to the part where Peterson starts speaking of values, itâs about 10 minutes in and builds up over the next 30 minutes at least. I havenât finished listening to this whole long interview yet, but from what Iâm hearing so far, Iâll be taking it all in.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.