Why are atheists and agnostics so sad?

[Dukasaur]

Thou shalt not kill...

It's "Murder" and not "Kill."

Also it's a "Poisoner" and not a "Witch."

It is so much better in the original language and not in the translations of politicians.

I didn't know you spoke Ancient Hebrew. I'll be sure to ask you next time.

[mrswdk]

if everyone followed Nietzsche's will to power justification, then I don't see how the world would be a better place.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Nietzsche was merely saying that people are driven by the desire achieve the most they can in life, not that it's okay to do anything you like for personal gain.

What is so unacceptable about following a philosophy that allows for slavery or genocide, by the way? It sounds like you're allowing final judgement to be made my your own personal tastes.

[BigBallinStalin]

Our moral code does still allow slavery and genocide - just not within our own species any more. We'll happily raise captive animals to work for us and conduct (regional) culls of various kinds of vermin or dangerous animals in order to protect ourselves.

I'm not talking about non-humans.

Like people in history haven't been talking about black people? Or foreign people? Or gay people? Or women? Who's to say we know where the dividing line is any better now with regard to other species as we did in the past when it came to different skin colours, sexualities, genders, etc? Why is a species difference any more or less arbitrary than any of those?

If you think these examples are stupid, just think how stupid it would have sounded 2000 years ago to declare slavery of other human beings as relatively absolutely immoral.

Sure, changes in prices and property rights result in different outcomes over time, but I thought we were talking about today--not 2000 years ago. To be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of absolute morality.

You're arguing in favour of relatively absolute absolutes (at least I think you are, you're giving that impression), in which case my example still holds as a counter, unless you admit they are just as unknowable as the true absolutes.

So, we can't only talk about today?

[BigBallinStalin]

Do you feel that people can have absolute ownership of property?

What do you mean by that?

I can totally own many things--if you give me a gun, and if I was willing to go 'round robbing people.

Do people have absolute control over property? Of course not.

Do people have absolute/total ownership of property? It depends on the details of the exchange (e.g. if you buy a PS3, the contract curtails your use rights--which are a part of one's total ownership rights). An exchange is the transferal of property rights over those goods in the trade, and every exchange involves a formal/informal contract which delineates the property rights (including ownership/use/sale rights).

[BigBallinStalin]

hey BBS, it might help to let us know why you think humans are fundamentally different from animals in terms of moral value.

i've gotta say, that sounds a lot like a religious belief.

Humans don't have any intrinsic value if that's what you're hinting at. At the moment, I don't really care about discussing the moral philosophy of non-humans. And, I don't know what you mean by 'moral value'. Do some humans estimate the moral value of their pets more so than some other humans? Sure. Do some humans assess the moral value of all non-humans to be zero? Sure. But I'm not really sure what 'moral value' is nor understand its implications.

[BigBallinStalin]

if everyone followed Nietzsche's will to power justification, then I don't see how the world would be a better place.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Nietzsche was merely saying that people are driven by the desire achieve the most they can in life, not that it's okay to do anything you like for personal gain.

What is so unacceptable about following a philosophy that allows for slavery or genocide, by the way? It sounds like you're allowing final judgement to be made my your own personal tastes.

Nietzsche says a lot of things. He's more an artist than a philosopher (but he certainly is still a philosopher). From what I recall, this paragraph jumps to my mind about Nietzsche describing those who subscribe to the will to power. They're like a lion--untamed, explosive with energy, very much free. They're like a tourist in some country completely unhinged from the moral and formal constraints of that society, doing whatever they please. Nietzsche was deeply concerned about most people's unwillingness to self-develop and was greatly annoyed at manipulation from the government level.

In Thus Spake Zarathustra, he described the journey to become an ueberman as walking across a tight rope over a chasm. Most who look over the cliff refuse to even try that journey toward self-development.

This is the description I had in mind when I made that previous statement, so hopefully that clears things up.

What is so unacceptable about following a philosophy that allows for slavery or genocide, by the way? It sounds like you're allowing final judgement to be made my your own personal tastes.

Huh? What philosophy? I don't know what you're talking about.

[BigBallinStalin]

Thus, 'relatively absolute absolutes'. Although there is a small range of justifiable circumstances for legitimate killing and theft, I think we can agree that there is no large range of justifiable circumstances for either*.

I'm not arguing in favor of moral absolutes because that's impossible. If we wish to argue against the 'relatively absolute absolutes' of morality, then try justifying slavery, genocide, or theft* and murder (over a greater range of circumstances). Someone like Hitler could 'justify' genocide, but it doesn't follow that he's correct--given an acceptable standard of moral philosophy (which does vary, but imagine choosing a moral philosophy which allows for slavery or genocide. Would you abide by it?).

*Theft as represented by relatively high taxation will be a disputable 'relatively absolute absolute', so like I said, you're right that this is not even relatively absolute, but as for the others?

Would I abide by slavery and genocide? No. Have others? Yes; in fact, slavery was fairly standard practice for the vast majority of the history of humanity.

And what is an acceptable standard of moral philosophy? Who sets the acceptable standard? Why do 99% of people in 2013 think slavery is immoral when 87% of people in 1000 thought slavery was moral? How did those standards change?

There are further examples of societal differences as to what is moral and immoral. For example, some cultures find female (or male) genital mutilation moral. Others find allowing only men to vote to be moral.

Sure, the rules of various groups depend on their moral philosophies which can differ over cultures and time.

Are slavery and/or genocide morally permissible?

The standard? Well, I think we can agree that using logic is a must. We can agree between ourselves to abide by this standard, right? So, that's a micro-scale level toward answering your questions.

[crispybits]

My point BBS was not so much about history or speciesism, but more that relatively absolute absolutes don't actually address any of the problems of relativism generally.

Our RAAs today are no less arbitrary then the RAAs 1000 years ago or 1000 years from now, and we know the RAAs from 1000 years ago look significantly different to the RAAs now, and it's logical to assume the RAAs 1000 years from now will also have significant alterations. All you're doing by declaring some things as RAAs is saying "these are the things we're pretty damn sure of as general principles" without giving any actual justification why the relativistic element of them is any less open to flaws, misinterpretation or change than the rules we're not so sure of (such as the morals of animal treatment).

The history and speciesism are just ways to demonstrate the point, they aren't the point itself.

[Gillipig]

I think nearly all of us can agree that stealing is wrong when the victim has legitimate title ownership to that property.

Really? I vehemently disagree with that.

That makes sense since you support theft without direct consent in some cases, e.g. taxation for education subsidies--as do most democrats. Good point. That's interesting! "Thou shall not steal" is violated whenever a Christian votes for a party which relies on theft.

What example did you have in mind?

And you say you're not a Republican? You sure sound like one. That post could've come straight out of Phatscotty or Nightstrike.

I admire your trolling capabilities.

Me trolling? What have you been smoking?
I can understand your admiration though. It's hard not to admire someone like myself.

[thegreekdog]

Thus, 'relatively absolute absolutes'. Although there is a small range of justifiable circumstances for legitimate killing and theft, I think we can agree that there is no large range of justifiable circumstances for either*.

I'm not arguing in favor of moral absolutes because that's impossible. If we wish to argue against the 'relatively absolute absolutes' of morality, then try justifying slavery, genocide, or theft* and murder (over a greater range of circumstances). Someone like Hitler could 'justify' genocide, but it doesn't follow that he's correct--given an acceptable standard of moral philosophy (which does vary, but imagine choosing a moral philosophy which allows for slavery or genocide. Would you abide by it?).

*Theft as represented by relatively high taxation will be a disputable 'relatively absolute absolute', so like I said, you're right that this is not even relatively absolute, but as for the others?

Would I abide by slavery and genocide? No. Have others? Yes; in fact, slavery was fairly standard practice for the vast majority of the history of humanity.

And what is an acceptable standard of moral philosophy? Who sets the acceptable standard? Why do 99% of people in 2013 think slavery is immoral when 87% of people in 1000 thought slavery was moral? How did those standards change?

There are further examples of societal differences as to what is moral and immoral. For example, some cultures find female (or male) genital mutilation moral. Others find allowing only men to vote to be moral.

Sure, the rules of various groups depend on their moral philosophies which can differ over cultures and time.

Are slavery and/or genocide morally permissible?

The standard? Well, I think we can agree that using logic is a must. We can agree between ourselves to abide by this standard, right? So, that's a micro-scale level toward answering your questions.

My questions were rhetorical, but thanks. My point is that there are no moral absolutes.

[BigBallinStalin]

My point BBS was not so much about history or speciesism, but more that relatively absolute absolutes don't actually address any of the problems of relativism generally.

Our RAAs today are no less arbitrary then the RAAs 1000 years ago or 1000 years from now, and we know the RAAs from 1000 years ago look significantly different to the RAAs now, and it's logical to assume the RAAs 1000 years from now will also have significant alterations. All you're doing by declaring some things as RAAs is saying "these are the things we're pretty damn sure of as general principles" without giving any actual justification why the relativistic element of them is any less open to flaws, misinterpretation or change than the rules we're not so sure of (such as the morals of animal treatment).

The history and speciesism are just ways to demonstrate the point, they aren't the point itself.

I don't see why we can't discuss moral topics in today's world and strive toward agreement on them.

[BigBallinStalin]

Thus, 'relatively absolute absolutes'. Although there is a small range of justifiable circumstances for legitimate killing and theft, I think we can agree that there is no large range of justifiable circumstances for either*.

I'm not arguing in favor of moral absolutes because that's impossible. If we wish to argue against the 'relatively absolute absolutes' of morality, then try justifying slavery, genocide, or theft* and murder (over a greater range of circumstances). Someone like Hitler could 'justify' genocide, but it doesn't follow that he's correct--given an acceptable standard of moral philosophy (which does vary, but imagine choosing a moral philosophy which allows for slavery or genocide. Would you abide by it?).

*Theft as represented by relatively high taxation will be a disputable 'relatively absolute absolute', so like I said, you're right that this is not even relatively absolute, but as for the others?

Would I abide by slavery and genocide? No. Have others? Yes; in fact, slavery was fairly standard practice for the vast majority of the history of humanity.

And what is an acceptable standard of moral philosophy? Who sets the acceptable standard? Why do 99% of people in 2013 think slavery is immoral when 87% of people in 1000 thought slavery was moral? How did those standards change?

There are further examples of societal differences as to what is moral and immoral. For example, some cultures find female (or male) genital mutilation moral. Others find allowing only men to vote to be moral.

Sure, the rules of various groups depend on their moral philosophies which can differ over cultures and time.

Are slavery and/or genocide morally permissible?

The standard? Well, I think we can agree that using logic is a must. We can agree between ourselves to abide by this standard, right? So, that's a micro-scale level toward answering your questions.

My questions were rhetorical, but thanks. My point is that there are no moral absolutes.

Then you've been arguing against the wrong person.

[thegreekdog]

Thus, 'relatively absolute absolutes'. Although there is a small range of justifiable circumstances for legitimate killing and theft, I think we can agree that there is no large range of justifiable circumstances for either*.

I'm not arguing in favor of moral absolutes because that's impossible. If we wish to argue against the 'relatively absolute absolutes' of morality, then try justifying slavery, genocide, or theft* and murder (over a greater range of circumstances). Someone like Hitler could 'justify' genocide, but it doesn't follow that he's correct--given an acceptable standard of moral philosophy (which does vary, but imagine choosing a moral philosophy which allows for slavery or genocide. Would you abide by it?).

*Theft as represented by relatively high taxation will be a disputable 'relatively absolute absolute', so like I said, you're right that this is not even relatively absolute, but as for the others?

Would I abide by slavery and genocide? No. Have others? Yes; in fact, slavery was fairly standard practice for the vast majority of the history of humanity.

And what is an acceptable standard of moral philosophy? Who sets the acceptable standard? Why do 99% of people in 2013 think slavery is immoral when 87% of people in 1000 thought slavery was moral? How did those standards change?

There are further examples of societal differences as to what is moral and immoral. For example, some cultures find female (or male) genital mutilation moral. Others find allowing only men to vote to be moral.

Sure, the rules of various groups depend on their moral philosophies which can differ over cultures and time.

Are slavery and/or genocide morally permissible?

The standard? Well, I think we can agree that using logic is a must. We can agree between ourselves to abide by this standard, right? So, that's a micro-scale level toward answering your questions.

My questions were rhetorical, but thanks. My point is that there are no moral absolutes.

Then you've been arguing against the wrong person.

Sometimes I quote people when I agree with them.

[BigBallinStalin]

Do you have a relevant opinion on relatively absolute absolutes (RAAs)?

[BigBallinStalin]

To TGD and everyone else: we can point to a standard which more reasonable people would abide by (logic). Obviously, this enables us to move closer to some area of mutual agreement. (If you care to argue in favor of non-logic, then by all means please don't. If you care to argue about some optimal mixture between logic and non-logic, then that would interesting).

People believing that slavery was okay 1000 years ago isn't relevant* to today's world. From today, we can simply say, 'their actions don't permit slavery in today's world/particular societies*'. The preferences of serial murderers aren't relevant; they can't join the Cool Kids' Club with our mutual agreement zone. So, we're narrowing it down--getting closer to the RAA. Vulgar relativism itself is completely useless and is not sincerely followed, thus becomes irrelevant.

*The main problem I see with my argument and any argument concerning moral philosophy is that prices and constraints from income will curtail moral possibilities, which is a fundamental problem of moral philosophy that is hardly recognized. One implication of this is that many branches of moral philosophy--by themselves--are very useless in providing proper solutions, and they can be disastrous if applied to circumstances which are ignored/improperly discarded by a particular moral philosophy.

[thegreekdog]

To TGD and everyone else: we can point to a standard which more reasonable people would abide by (logic). Obviously, this enables us to move closer to some area of mutual agreement. (If you care to argue in favor of non-logic, then by all means please don't. If you care to argue about some optimal mixture between logic and non-logic, then that would interesting).

People believing that slavery was okay 1000 years ago isn't relevant* to today's world. From today, we can simply say, 'their actions don't permit slavery in today's world/particular societies*'. The preferences of serial murderers aren't relevant; they can't join the Cool Kids' Club with our mutual agreement zone. So, we're narrowing it down--getting closer to the RAA. Vulgar relativism itself is completely useless and is not sincerely followed, thus becomes irrelevant.

*The main problem I see with my argument and any argument concerning moral philosophy is that prices and constraints from income will curtail moral possibilities, which is a fundamental problem of moral philosophy that is hardly recognized. One implication of this is that many branches of moral philosophy--by themselves--are very useless in providing proper solutions, and they can be disastrous if applied to circumstances which are ignored/improperly discarded by a particular moral philosophy.

Are you disagreeing with me?

[crispybits]

To TGD and everyone else: we can point to a standard which more reasonable people would abide by (logic). Obviously, this enables us to move closer to some area of mutual agreement. (If you care to argue in favor of non-logic, then by all means please don't. If you care to argue about some optimal mixture between logic and non-logic, then that would interesting).

People believing that slavery was okay 1000 years ago isn't relevant* to today's world. From today, we can simply say, 'their actions don't permit slavery in today's world/particular societies*'. The preferences of serial murderers aren't relevant; they can't join the Cool Kids' Club with our mutual agreement zone. So, we're narrowing it down--getting closer to the RAA. Vulgar relativism itself is completely useless and is not sincerely followed, thus becomes irrelevant.

*The main problem I see with my argument and any argument concerning moral philosophy is that prices and constraints from income will curtail moral possibilities, which is a fundamental problem of moral philosophy that is hardly recognized. One implication of this is that many branches of moral philosophy--by themselves--are very useless in providing proper solutions, and they can be disastrous if applied to circumstances which are ignored/improperly discarded by a particular moral philosophy.

Explain how RAAs are any less arbitrary than pure relativism (which can also arrive at general consensus) and we'll be getting somewhere (without dodging the question because of examples I use to illustrate a point)

[john9blue]

is there anyone in this thread who believes that they don't fall into one of these three categories:

- morality based on their religion
- morality based on cultural mores
- no absolute morality

if so, i'd love to hear where you get your morality from. i believe i'm not in any of these categories, but i want to hear what other people think first before saying anything.

[tzor]

Thou shalt not kill...

It's "Murder" and not "Kill."

Also it's a "Poisoner" and not a "Witch."

It is so much better in the original language and not in the translations of politicians.

I didn't know you spoke Ancient Hebrew. I'll be sure to ask you next time.

As Arthur Pendragon once said, "When you are a King, you have to know these things."

Here is something else I know ...

The first words of the Bible, generally badly translated is generally "Beginning, God Created" but if you change spacing and vowel marks you can get "From within a head, God was created."

[BigBallinStalin]

Okay, here's pure relativism: I have no idea what to think about slavery. Other people did it 1000 years ago, and some people do it today. It's like relative, man. Can't decide on whether or not it's wrong. (this is the consistently logical implication; it's where vulgar relativism brings you--but most pure relativists don't sincerely want to take it this far, so they're really not pure relativists).

Here's absolutism: Slavery in any situation and at any time is immoral. (it's a universal stance)

Here's RAA: Slavery in today's world should be morally impermissible.


We can't settle with absolutism because of its strict adherence to the universal. We can't settle with pure relativism because it fails to guide us to any morally correct solution (adherence to pure relativism can also shun any use of logic, so it's a stupid/incorrect system for establishing guidelines).


Also, I should clarify a few things. I'm talking about two things at the same time:

(1) 'moral policy' recommendations at the meta-level,
-e.g. how shall we deem what is morally correct and what is morally incorrect?
-----some suspects: logic, emotion, some mix in between,
-----lesser meta-level: utilitarianism, 'rawlsianism', Aristotelian virtue ethics, etc.


(2) positive and normative analysis of various examples.
---ermerhgerd, group X mutilates female genitalia. '
---Eskimos kill off their elderly in times of great scarcity (positive: that's what happens, and it makes sense given the scarcity. Normative: ermehgerd, they should be forbidden from doing that. Ermehgerd, they shouldn't be forbidden from doing that).

[tzor]

Okay, here's pure relativism: I have no idea what to think about slavery. Other people did it 1000 years ago, and some people do it today.

I don't want to throw cold water on your relativism, but that's a lot like dancing. Yes people danced a 1000 years ago, but it's not the same as today. Likewise there are so many differences between "slavery" in different times and places that it is impossible to have any single opinion about it that would correctly span off of those times and places.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[BigBallinStalin]

Okay, here's pure relativism: I have no idea what to think about slavery. Other people did it 1000 years ago, and some people do it today.

I don't want to throw cold water on your relativism, but that's a lot like dancing. Yes people danced a 1000 years ago, but it's not the same as today. Likewise there are so many differences between "slavery" in different times and places that it is impossible to have any single opinion about it that would correctly span off of those times and places.

I can't counter if you don't give us a clear definition of slavery. If you leave the definition vague, then sure, you're very much 'correct' (but not really). For me, slavery is clear. Someone owns another person without their consent. Slavery requires an involuntary exchange. The property rights which one definitely possesses over oneself becomes violated when someone else engages in a good-bad exchange. That someone would pull out their gun and says, "I own you." Really? How can slavery be so vague?

There aren't any variations of slavery as there are for dances. Don't let the analogy mislead you.


If you really believe your last sentence, then you'd have no problem with king achilles enslaving you. Why not? Because there's "so many differences between "slavery" in different times and places that it is impossible to have any single opinion about it that would correctly span off of those times and places." (you do see how pure relativism becomes nonsense, right? That's my main point against vulgar relativism which you've yet to dismantle).

[BigBallinStalin]

What I've learnt from you guys is that it is not only Christians who can't agree with each other...

You have discarded logic by adhering to circular reasoning. You can't enjoy a superior position while becoming a fool.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-