Started by Awakepuddle, February 26, 2017, 09:20:11 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 01, 2017, 01:09:55 PMMoralists = hypocritical, delusional, deceitful ass holes.
Quote from: WebstersDefinition of moralist1: one who leads a moral life2: a philosopher or writer concerned with moral principles and problems3: one concerned with regulating the morals of others
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 01, 2017, 01:56:47 PMPick one.
Quote from: Awakepuddle on March 03, 2017, 09:51:49 PMNot sure how this thread got off track but I will give it more try to anyone who would like to respond to the actual topic I broached.
Quote from: AwakepuddleThe term objective morality carries a lot of baggage in the theist eyes.
Quote from: Awakepuddle on March 01, 2017, 12:47:00 AMIt is more of a thought experiment. I'm not defining social norms. Rather I'm describing a frame work of evaluating morality that can be considered independent of the individual observer and their personal bias. It is not numerical. Hence i proposed a qualitative term. They key of course is the metric. But the reason for the proposal as I previously mentioned was not to prove the validity of method (how do you do that if your method claims to be god) but rather give less hot button terms to relate to our theistitic colleges with and allow us to move past maybe one quagmire and potentially steer our conversations on to a more fruitful subject. In fact nowhere in my statement do I use the word truth nor have I proposed a metric mr philosopher. I'm not trying Prove anything (or dispel a null either) so not sure where experimentation came from. I never claimed this was the only way to look at morality. I was merely pointing out a common argument and word choice that I thought could be changed. It just seems that using the term objective morality carries with it baggage that while definitionally required is connatatively present. Instead let's just use something else that is equally definitionally true and does not have the attached societal or historic connotation
Quote from: Awakepuddle on March 04, 2017, 10:00:52 AMI was proposing that we as atheist stop using the term objective when discussing with theists.
Quote from: Awakepuddle on March 04, 2017, 10:00:52 AM@zorn I agree I haven't been here long so I didn't realize that barusch was a tangentialist (she or he who worships the magic of the 90 degree arc). Thanks for responding to me. I agree with you completely which is why I was proposing that we as atheist stop using the term objective when discussing with theists. They are often fixed on the concept of absolutes that i atleast feel is impossible. So I don't engage on that level. When asked how I can determine morality I say I believe in qualitative morality. Maybe the ones I've spoken with haven't been smart enough to equate that to relative morality but I try to define it quickly in a more objective way, again saying hat we don't have to agree on the unit but if we agree on the ruler we can agree on greater and less than terms. This is true regardless as long as we agree on the same measurements. Now if you measure temperature and I'm measuring decibels we are at an impasse. Anyway my limited experience it has defused the you need to have a god for morality otherwise eating children could be ok arguement. Just thought I would throw it out there. @pop not sure what throwing out gain has to do with it. Actions can be moral irrespective or any gain or loss. In fact I would argue there is always a personal gain for doing something you consider moral. I remember a friends episode (jeez have we devolved so far as to quote early 2000s sitcoms for phylosoohical insite) when phoebe worried about givin away some money because even if no one else knew she would and her happiness is a personal gain therefore no one can be completely selfless. Anyway my 2 cents. Thanks
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 04, 2017, 09:40:49 PMSome mutual profit or mood altering benefit may come from a morally right decision and action, but what makes it moral is the reason it was done. If that reason is for self then it isn't exactly moral.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 04, 2017, 11:21:46 PMI dunno, I think morally right* decisions don't necessarily have to be entirely selfless. For example, helping someone in trouble on the off chance that they'll return the favor (aka reciprocal altruism). That's precisely what vampire bats do when sharing blood.* Imo, moral right and wrong is more of a socially-constructed concept (like law and justice) rather than something that exists in nature apart from people. In reality, there are simply actions with beneficial and detrimental results. Evil is just shorthand for actions deemed to be reliably detrimental.Morality works as long as the rubber stays on the road and moral precepts are tied to beneficial results. When moralists stop thinking about human living conditions and focus on what God doesn't like or what they personally don't like, it can lead to some seriously maladjusted morality where right and wrong is totally arbitrary.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 04, 2017, 11:23:52 PMDoing a thing because chance may allow for you to collect on some debt is not moral and actually more closely resembles the injustices you where attempting to allude to.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 04, 2017, 11:37:31 PMReciprocal altruism is immoral and resembles an arbitrary form of morality unconcerned with human wellbeing? A fascinating, though dubious claim. Probably much easier to assert than to support. I'd like to see you support that claim if you can.