Is morality possible without God

[Novorobo]

Sure it is. Just ask Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

[RSDLP]

Is slavery immoral?

Yes, yes it is. What does that have anything to do with this?

My point is, given how widespread slavey has been in history, either there morality isn't tied to human nature or human nature has undergone serious changes over time. The ancient Greeks and Romans, for instance, would have regarded slavery as intrinsic to human nature. Yet we all (I hope) that slavery is immoral and utterly repulsive.

You could do the same thing with cannibalism, once widespread and reviled by most people today. Sexism, homophobia, racism, the divine right of kings, and all sorts of other detestable ideas could also be used given how much more prevalent they were in the past then today.

[New Werpland]

All while ignoring that ne just left the door open for all kinds of horrible things, like Mussolini.

Why would I ignore that? I have no problem acknowledging that other people will also have their own views and will try to enforce them. All that does is reduce things to a question of physical force- do I shoot Mussolini or does Mussolini shoot me?- and test the willingness of people to fight to see their views implemented.

You see I find it incredibly digusting I would have to concede that Mussolini's sick views are as valid as mine or some great ethicist. That is why I'm just dancing around moral relativism for now until I find a way to refute it, which I'm sure exists.

...you're still alive.

Indeed.....

Don't worry there are many god believers who manage to sustain themselves in this world, even ones who manage to win auspicious prizes in science and philosophy at the same time. You'll survive.

[Mavorpen]

Yes, yes it is. What does that have anything to do with this?

My point is, given how widespread slavey has been in history, either there morality isn't tied to human nature or human nature has undergone serious changes over time. The ancient Greeks and Romans, for instance, would have regarded slavery as intrinsic to human nature. Yet we all (I hope) that slavery is immoral and utterly repulsive.

You could do the same thing with cannibalism, once widespread and reviled by most people today. Sexism, homophobia, racism, the divine right of kings, and all sorts of other detestable ideas could also be used given how much more prevalent they were in the past then today.

This...this doesn't refute what he said at all. Morality just refers to a system in which you hold values distinguishing right and wrong. In that sense, morality is intrinsic in "human nature," though I dislike the useage of that term.

[RSDLP]

This...this doesn't refute what he said at all. Morality just refers to a system in which you hold values distinguishing right and wrong. In that sense, morality is intrinsic in "human nature," though I dislike the useage of that term.

It we take morality to be a system, any system, for distinguishing right from wrong, that can produce any result whatsoever, then sure, the idea that morality is inherent in human nature is correct, but it's also meaningless.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Yes, yes it is. What does that have anything to do with this?

My point is, given how widespread slavey has been in history, either there morality isn't tied to human nature or human nature has undergone serious changes over time. The ancient Greeks and Romans, for instance, would have regarded slavery as intrinsic to human nature. Yet we all (I hope) that slavery is immoral and utterly repulsive.

You could do the same thing with cannibalism, once widespread and reviled by most people today. Sexism, homophobia, racism, the divine right of kings, and all sorts of other detestable ideas could also be used given how much more prevalent they were in the past then today.

That just shows that morality is subjective. Ancient peoples (and even people today) hold views that are highly contradictory to today's common views. However, believe it or not, it was normal to believe those things were okay.

Since our way of life changes over time, so do our common views on things like that.

In a few centuries, it's likely we'll be seen as incredibly sexist and racist, despite 21st-Century us having progressed so far ahead of our ancestors.

[Grave_n_idle]

This...this doesn't refute what he said at all. Morality just refers to a system in which you hold values distinguishing right and wrong. In that sense, morality is intrinsic in "human nature," though I dislike the useage of that term.

It we take morality to be a system, any system, for distinguishing right from wrong, that can produce any result whatsoever, then sure, the idea that morality is inherent in human nature is correct, but it's also meaningless.

Why would it produce 'any result whatsoever'?

Moral codes almost always agree on certain values - i.e. murder, violence, theft, etc - but that's only to be expected because all societies have the same need for the same values.

Morality is 'inherent' because it's pragmatic. Whether that makes it 'meaningless' or not is debatable.

I, personally, don't think being pragmatic makes it meaningless. Quite the opposite, even.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

That just shows that morality is subjective. Ancient peoples (and even people today) hold views that are highly contradictory to today's common views. However, believe it or not, it was normal to believe those things were okay.

Since our way of life changes over time, so do our common views on things like that.

In a few centuries, it's likely we'll be seen as incredibly sexist and racist, despite 21st-Century us having progressed so far ahead of our ancestors.

That implies progress, the idea that we are getting better as a people. For that to be true, there has to be some moral ideal that we are working toward; a state that best fulfils our real values.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

That just shows that morality is subjective. Ancient peoples (and even people today) hold views that are highly contradictory to today's common views. However, believe it or not, it was normal to believe those things were okay.

Since our way of life changes over time, so do our common views on things like that.

In a few centuries, it's likely we'll be seen as incredibly sexist and racist, despite 21st-Century us having progressed so far ahead of our ancestors.

That implies progress, the idea that we are getting better as a people. For that to be true, there has to be some moral ideal that we are working toward; a state that best fulfils our real values.

We are a society that, in general, is becoming more tolerant of other people. Our views change constantly, and continue to change in order to make society more productive by incorporating everyone as they should be.

[RSDLP]

That just shows that morality is subjective. Ancient peoples (and even people today) hold views that are highly contradictory to today's common views. However, believe it or not, it was normal to believe those things were okay.....

That way my whole point. I was objecting to the idea that a definite moral code is inherent to human nature and followed that up by suggesting that saying that if morality is defined as simply being a system for distinguishing right from wrong, then the idea that it is inherent to humanity- or any other form of intelligent life- is both correct and empty of content.

Why would it produce 'any result whatsoever'?

In practice it wouldn't, for the reason you pointed out, but the range of results that would actually be produced is irrelevant to the point.

Moral codes almost always agree on certain values - i.e. murder, violence, theft, etc - but that's only to be expected because all societies have the same need for the same values.

Correct.

Morality is 'inherent' because it's pragmatic. Whether that makes it 'meaningless' or not is debatable.

I, personally, don't think being pragmatic makes it meaningless. Quite the opposite, even.

I am not contending that being pragmatic makes morality meaningless or even that morality is meaningless, but that the statement that morality is inherent is meaningless granted the conception of morality suggested- meaningless in the sense that the statement "we live in a universe that it is possible for humans to live in" is meaningless and empty of any real content.

[Mavorpen]

This...this doesn't refute what he said at all. Morality just refers to a system in which you hold values distinguishing right and wrong. In that sense, morality is intrinsic in "human nature," though I dislike the useage of that term.

It we take morality to be a system, any system, for distinguishing right from wrong, that can produce any result whatsoever, then sure, the idea that morality is inherent in human nature is correct, but it's also meaningless.

You have an odd definition of meaningless. Having morality is the first step to developing a coherent and useful ethical framework by which we can discuss and debate ideas for what we, as a society or even a species, should consider "right" or "wrong."

[Nilla Wayfarers]

That just shows that morality is subjective. Ancient peoples (and even people today) hold views that are highly contradictory to today's common views. However, believe it or not, it was normal to believe those things were okay.....

That way my whole point. I was objecting to the idea that a definite moral code is inherent to human nature...

There is no definite moral code. I JUST SAID morality is subjective.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Is slavery immoral?

Yes, yes it is. What does that have anything to do with this?

No it isn't.

Now, this MIGHT shock you, but here's the thing. We now consider slavery "wrong" and "immoral" but our ancestors didn't, and who knows if in the future slavery will be institutionalized again against a group of people. I consider slavery "wrong" and "immoral" to my set of values, but that's not the same morals everyone else holds.

In this case, the proper answer to slavery is "depends on who you ask and on which time period they are living in", because what for us is immoral in 2015 wasn't immoral for people in 1776 and might not even be for people living in 2178, provided humanity lasts that long. It might not even be immoral for some people in 2015 still.

[Wallenburg]

Yes, yes it is. What does that have anything to do with this?

No it isn't.

I consider slavery "wrong" and "immoral" to my set of values

What the fuck is this?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No it isn't.

What the fuck is this?

Did you even read the rest?

Now, this MIGHT shock you, but here's the thing. We now consider slavery "wrong" and "immoral" but our ancestors didn't, and who knows if in the future slavery will be institutionalized again against a group of people. I consider slavery "wrong" and "immoral" to my set of values, but that's not the same morals everyone else holds.

In this case, the proper answer to slavery is "depends on who you ask and on which time period they are living in", because what for us is immoral in 2015 wasn't immoral for people in 1776 and might not even be for people living in 2178, provided humanity lasts that long. It might not even be immoral for some people in 2015 still.

[Wallenburg]

What the fuck is this?

Did you even read the rest?

Yes. But it is a direct contradiction. The rest of the post makes sense, but you can't say one thing and then flip-flop IN THE SAME POST.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Yes, yes it is. What does that have anything to do with this?

No it isn't.

Now, this MIGHT shock you, but here's the thing. We now consider slavery "wrong" and "immoral" but our ancestors didn't, and who knows if in the future slavery will be institutionalized again against a group of people. I consider slavery "wrong" and "immoral" to my set of values, but that's not the same morals everyone else holds.

In this case, the proper answer to slavery is "depends on who you ask and on which time period they are living in", because what for us is immoral in 2015 wasn't immoral for people in 1776 and might not even be for people living in 2178, provided humanity lasts that long. It might not even be immoral for some people in 2015 still.

If you actually read my last posts, I said all of that, except we are moving toward an inclusive, equal society, not another oppressive one.

[Mavorpen]

Did you even read the rest?

Yes. But it is a direct contradiction. The rest of the post makes sense, but you can't say one thing and then flip-flop IN THE SAME POST.

He's saying it's not inherently immoral from an "objective" standpoint, but that he considers it immoral by his own personal set of values. I dont' see the contradiction.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Did you even read the rest?

Yes. But it is a direct contradiction. The rest of the post makes sense, but you can't say one thing and then flip-flop IN THE SAME POST.

Then you didn't understand it and what I should do is a clarification.

What I mean is that, objectively, you can't say something is "immoral", period.

What I mean by "no it isn't" is that it isn't ABSOLUTELY immoral, because some people might find it moral, and a society in the future might find it as moral as people thought of it in the past.

So, the proper answer isn't a "no" is a "it depends on who you are asking"; because by saying something is "immoral" and not giving an explanation that this is what YOU think is immoral, you are making an objective statement. And it is verifiably false if you can find one person who believes or believed or will believe that it is moral.

[Wallenburg]

Yes. But it is a direct contradiction. The rest of the post makes sense, but you can't say one thing and then flip-flop IN THE SAME POST.

He's saying it's not inherently immoral, but that he considers it immoral by his own personal set of values. I dont' see the contradiction.

Well, nothing is inherently immoral, because morality is not objective. The only way we can assert morality is through subjective mindsets, either of the individual or the collective.

Yes. But it is a direct contradiction. The rest of the post makes sense, but you can't say one thing and then flip-flop IN THE SAME POST.

Then you didn't understand it and what I should do is a clarification.

What I mean is that, objectively, you can't say something is "immoral", period.

What I mean by "no it isn't" is that it isn't ABSOLUTELY immoral, because some people might find it moral, and a society in the future might find it as moral as people thought of it in the past.

So, the proper answer is a "no" is a "it depends on who you are asking"; because by saying something is "immoral" and not giving an explanation that this is what YOU think is immoral, you are making an objective statement. And it is verifiably false if you can find one person who believes or believed or will believe that it is moral.

I agree completely. I misunderstood the message you sought to convey.

[Mavorpen]

He's saying it's not inherently immoral, but that he considers it immoral by his own personal set of values. I dont' see the contradiction.

Well, nothing is inherently immoral, because morality is not objective. The only way we can assert morality is through subjective mindsets, either of the individual or the collective.

Great, so there's no contradiction. Glad we've gotten through that.

[Foederatio Hesperiae]

From my understanding the skepticism around morality boils down to "what authority is there that makes doing x actions bad and others good?" I can't think of anything besides God that may constitute this authority.

There is an authority that regulates morality, but its not God - to the contrary, it's evolution that decides what's moral and what is amoral.

For example, look at some things that are not considered moral - murder, rape, lying, stealing, etc. Now, it is a known fact that humans are social creatures, so in the earliest stages of the development of our species it was very important that an individual remain in the group structure; that way the individual would have security, food, shelter, and generally just better means for survival.

However, if an individual killed another, or compromised the group through falsehood, or stole some food, or generally did any other thing considered "amoral," then that individual would most likely be expelled from the group, if not killed outright. Being expelled meant that the individual would lack the protection of the group, would have to gather his own food, and would be more susceptible to predators or the elements - thus, this individual would probably die before reproducing.

As we all know, the basic purpose of our existence is to reproduce to carry on the species, so individuals who had "moral" behaviour reproduced and taught their children the same behaviour, while "amoral" individuals died. Thus, a moral code developed over many generations, all because humans have an intrinsic desire for group acceptance.

[The Venderlands]

Indeed.....

So you're basing your continued existence on the presumed existence of an entity with zero evidence supporting said presumption and a gravely contradictory moral framework.

A tenuous base indeed.

Oh no. There's evidence all right. It's just that ignoring it will get you nowhere.

[Dyakovo]

So you're basing your continued existence on the presumed existence of an entity with zero evidence supporting said presumption and a gravely contradictory moral framework.

A tenuous base indeed.

Oh no. There's evidence all right. It's just that ignoring it will get you nowhere.

Then present said evidence.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

So you're basing your continued existence on the presumed existence of an entity with zero evidence supporting said presumption and a gravely contradictory moral framework.

A tenuous base indeed.

Oh no. There's evidence all right. It's just that ignoring it will get you nowhere.

Evidence for a god? Well that's fucking news. Why hasn't everyone seen it and began believing? In all the years I spent as a devout Christian, even I never saw a single shred of reliable proof for a deity.

Care to provide us with the evidence we've been ignoring?