Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Were there any absolute morality to be had, then all peoples would come to the same conclusions about what is right and wrong."
Are you saying that people can't make mistakes? It is because we CAN make mistakes that morality is needed. "Morality pertains only to the sphere of man’s free will—only to those actions which are open to his choice."
That is Ayn Rand's version. Others have other moralities. It shows nothing but what one person believes.
No, I am not saying people cannot make mistakes. Only that if there were an absolute morality, then differing cultures would arrive at the same basis for their moral codes. They do not. They differ so wildly that some are diametrically opposed to others. If it were absolute, we in the modern western world would not now consider slavery to be immoral since for millenia and codified in the Bible, it was sanctioned and considered moral.
And if you hold life as a high value...a happy, rational life - you'd best stay away from those societies. If, on the other hand, you think that raping women is fine in a society where raping women is considered a sport, and if you think owning slaves a good thing if your neighbor owns a few or some old book says it's OK, and if you think communism is an ideal...well, I can tell you that you are absolutely immoral.
And if you hold life as a high value...a happy, rational life - you'd best stay away from those societies. If, on the other hand, you think that raping women is fine in a society where raping women is considered a sport, and if you think owning slaves a good thing if your neighbor owns a few or some old book says it's OK, and if you think communism is an ideal...well, I can tell you that you are absolutely immoral.
I happen to agree with you. But those are my morals and the morals of the dominant society in which I was raised.
My only point is that these sentiments are not universal. Other cultures and other times have held the opposite views. Do I want to live in them? No. But there are people of both sexes who do and just as fervently believe that they are right and you and I are immoral. Hence, there is no universal morality.
Yes, there is. Because a society chooses to be immoral (and we are wrongly ignoring the individual here), that does not make the immoral moral. A society may vote to make child abuse legal - it still won't be moral.
"The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man."
Think about that. It's the missing link that religionists ignore when they say atheists have no reason to be moral and have no moral compass.
I'm not sure why or how compassion requires purpose. Why is that necessary again?
Don't be misled into tangents, Braunwyn. This is an intellectual exercise to get the atheists to recognize an indisputable requirement for assigning ANY values whatsoever to the activities of humankind . . . OTHER THAN purely ARBITRARY ONES! . . . that are then decided by force or coercion.
Don't be misled into tangents, Braunwyn. This is an intellectual exercise to get the atheists to recognize an indisputable requirement for assigning ANY values whatsoever to the activities of humankind . . . OTHER THAN purely ARBITRARY ONES! . . . that are then decided by force or coercion.
I don't really understand the intent of the OP, or the OP at all for that matter, so maybe I'm missing something. Still, my question is pretty simple, especially in light that it was a response to your post. Specifically, "You are all correct that morals are arbitrary for atheists . . . which simply means they do not exist at all"
Morality is pretty clear cut for me and I don't see the need for a requirement of value; be it from a theist's persepective or Rand's. As best as I understand moral sense, compassion is at its foundation. There is no need to assign value here. It is what it is. The sun sets, the sky is blue, etc, without assinging value. Fully realized compassion includes ahimsa. A person either holds to this philosophy or s/he does not. It's certainly not arbitary. As an atheist, I see it as all-inclusive. Although, if this is only a discussion about moral action, than I guess that's something else.
I don't really understand the intent of the OP, or the OP at all for that matter, so maybe I'm missing something. Still, my question is pretty simple, especially in light that it was a response to your post. Specifically, "You are all correct that morals are arbitrary for atheists . . . which simply means they do not exist at all"
Morality is pretty clear cut for me and I don't see the need for a requirement of value; be it from a theist's persepective or Rand's. As best as I understand moral sense, compassion is at its foundation.
Why compassion? What is the value of compassion that makes it so foundational? Why isn't the lack of compassion equally valuable? OR as the kids would say . . . who gives a rats?
Quote:
There is no need to assign value here. It is what it is. The sun sets, the sky is blue, etc, without assinging value. Fully realized compassion includes ahimsa. A person either holds to this philosophy or s/he does not. It's certainly not arbitary. As an atheist, I see it as all-inclusive. Although, if this is only a discussion about moral action, than I guess that's something else.
I respect the Jains . . . but ultimately there needs to be a raison d'etre against which any so-called principles are measured . . or there can be no distinction between thesis and anti-thesis. Value as measured against a purposeful creation is the ONLY basis upon which that can be done NON-ARBITRARILY, IMO. WE needn't necessarily KNOW what the purpose is or HOW value is determined (that seems to be our biggest problem) . . . but its EXISTENCE is absolutely necessary . . . or it is all just NONSENSE.
"The sun sets, the sky is blue, etc, without assinging value. "
Just to be clear, morality only involves humans because we have choice. Suns, skies, trees, dogs, fish...none of them need morality or are capable of it.
BTW, people can and do assign value to these things. People value sunsets and clear weather, but these usually aren't moral issues.
But let's take compassion as an example. It would not be moral to feel compassion for evil people. An example Rand gave: "If one feels compassion towards the victims of a concentration camp, one cannot feel it for the torturers. If one does feel compassion towards the torturers, it is an act of moral treason toward the victims."
Consider 9-11.
Compassion most certainly is value-based. You don't understand what triggers emotional responses.
"Value as measured against a purposeful creation is the ONLY basis upon which that can be done NON-ARBITRARILY, IMO. "
I've already shot you down on this. "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man."
"The sun sets, the sky is blue, etc, without assinging value. "
Just to be clear, morality only involves humans because we have choice. Suns, skies, trees, dogs, fish...none of them need morality or are capable of it.
I'm not saying that dogs, trees, fish, etc have moral sense. Of course, non-human animals are amoral. Along the same vein, I tend to view humans that are not moral as amoral. I don't buy into immorality. It doesn't make sense to me. Actions OTOH are a different story.
Quote:
BTW, people can and do assign value to these things. People value sunsets and clear weather, but these usually aren't moral issues.
But let's take compassion as an example. It would not be moral to feel compassion for evil people.
I don't know how you come up with that. Compassion is the foundation of morality, as I understand it at least. Certainly, morality cannot exist without compassion. Be clear that I do understand moral action can exist without compassion but acting moral and being moral are not the same thing. It's not a matter of picking and choosing who you have compassion for. Again, you either have it or you do not and it doesn't matter who assigns what value to it.
Quote:
An example Rand gave: "If one feels compassion towards the victims of a concentration camp, one cannot feel it for the torturers. If one does feel compassion towards the torturers, it is an act of moral treason toward the victims."
That doesn't make sense to me either (sorry, tho I'm no philosopher). The compassion you have torwards these people certainly doesn't have to involve the compassion you have torwards something else. One is not dependent on the other.
For example, when a lion kills her prey, say a deer, I feel compassion for that prey. But that doesn't mean that I don't have compassion torwards the lion. One, the other, or both can suffer. This suffering is not dependent on anyone and it certainly has nothing to do with the observer who may or may not feel compassion due to that suffering. Granted, it's more difficult when considering humans because most assign more value to humans, and to extend it, some humans will have more value than others, but if anything is going to be deemed arbitrary, that's it.
Quote:
Consider 9-11.
Compassion most certainly is value-based. You don't understand what triggers emotional responses.
It doesn't matter what triggers emotional response. I either abhor suffering or not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
