Is morality possible without God

[Godular]

Okay how? If I jump off a cliff I don't get wings or the ability to fly. Neither would I get that a thousand years in the future or a thousand years in the past. How are we evolving exactly?

...I'm just about done with this kind of thinking.

Our thought processes and physical build have changed over the past tens of thousands of years. And that's a REALLY short time for evolution.

If you'd read any biology textbook ever (starting with Darwin's On the Origin of Species, if you decide to be a prick and find something Aristotle wrote), you'll find any major evolutionary change takes millions and millions of years. And we evolve for practical purposes, not so we can jump off cliffs.

Well... technically it would be evolution at work removing whatever genes were responsible for presenting the inclination to go basejumping without a parachute and for thinking that evolutionary alterations can happen in the span of a particularly lethal misstep.

So there's that.

[Sun Wukong]

Then again, where does that instinct come from? What makes it valuable to live? The instinct we have to live is part of God's design for our nature. Indeed it is a basic instinct, a basic instinct installed by God.

1. We have evolved brains. That is where our instincts come from.

2. The answer to your second question is not being dead.

3. Thats your opinion. My opinion is I don't know, its natural not to want to die.

4. Right.....

I mean, it's not really that being alive is inherently better then being dead, it's just animals that value being alive typically do better then those that do not, and have more reproductive success. Though there are exceptions...

[Nilla Wayfarers]

...I'm just about done with this kind of thinking.

Our thought processes and physical build have changed over the past tens of thousands of years. And that's a REALLY short time for evolution.

If you'd read any biology textbook ever (starting with Darwin's On the Origin of Species, if you decide to be a prick and find something Aristotle wrote), you'll find any major evolutionary change takes millions and millions of years. And we evolve for practical purposes, not so we can jump off cliffs.

Well... technically it would be evolution at work removing whatever genes were responsible for presenting the inclination to go basejumping without a parachute and for thinking that evolutionary alterations can happen in the span of a particularly lethal misstep.

So there's that.

I don't know why that's so funny, but thank you. It gives me faith in this thread again.

[Godular]

1. We have evolved brains. That is where our instincts come from.

2. The answer to your second question is not being dead.

3. Thats your opinion. My opinion is I don't know, its natural not to want to die.

4. Right.....

I mean, it's not really that being alive is inherently better then being dead, it's just animals that value being alive typically do better then those that do not, and have more reproductive success. Though there are exceptions...

Indeed, being dead generally precludes a creature from reproducing. So the desire to commit suicide would rather quickly work its way out of the gene pool.

[United States Kingdom]

1. We have evolved brains. That is where our instincts come from.

2. The answer to your second question is not being dead.

3. Thats your opinion. My opinion is I don't know, its natural not to want to die.

4. Right.....

I mean, it's not really that being alive is inherently better then being dead, it's just animals that value being alive typically do better then those that do not, and have more reproductive success. Though there are exceptions...

When your dead, you can't experience a lot of good things. Thats why being alive is better than being dead.

[Godular]

I mean, it's not really that being alive is inherently better then being dead, it's just animals that value being alive typically do better then those that do not, and have more reproductive success. Though there are exceptions...

When your dead, you can't experience a lot of good things. Thats why being alive is better than being dead.

Of course, they also avoid seeing the latest Adam Sandler movie... so there's that.

[Othelos]

I mean, it's not really that being alive is inherently better then being dead, it's just animals that value being alive typically do better then those that do not, and have more reproductive success. Though there are exceptions...

When your dead, you can't experience a lot of good things. Thats why being alive is better than being dead.

Non-existence [aka death] isn't a state of being in a person's mind; it would be unknown to a person that they don't exist. That would make good and bad things irrelevant.

[Sun Wukong]

I mean, it's not really that being alive is inherently better then being dead, it's just animals that value being alive typically do better then those that do not, and have more reproductive success. Though there are exceptions...

When your dead, you can't experience a lot of good things. Thats why being alive is better than being dead.

True, but 10/10 dead people polled did not express dissatisfaction at this fact.

[The Sapiens]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't morality a non physical thing? Yes most of us have a sense of morality, though it usually differs from person to person. I know that is a rather dumb argument, but it's not my point. If it's difficult to even prove whether we ourselves exist, is it possible to prove that certain actions are wrong without belief in a supernatural God?

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.

What do you think?

(Also it's worth noting that I'm talking about objective morality)

Objective morality doesn't exist. Even if God existed, His morals wouldn't be objective, they would just be the subjective morals of a very powerful being.

[Grave_n_idle]

can you prove otherwise?

Physics. The human brain is an organic computer. The computations made by that computer are physical phenomena that, theoretically, could be read like a hard-drive. In a sense, this is what a CAT scan does. Reads your brain.

Once you have it understood that your brain is a physical thing and that all the products of it's computations are caused by physical phenomena, the idea that everyone's thoughts aren't 'real' is silly.

The idea that just because some people recieved different inputs and thus behave differently than others means that we should just disregard everything in that sphere is only really useful when trying to get people operating on clashing worldviews to work together.

Perhaps you don't understand what subjectivity means?

[RSDLP]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't morality a non physical thing? Yes most of us have a sense of morality, though it usually differs from person to person. I know that is a rather dumb argument, but it's not my point. If it's difficult to even prove whether we ourselves exist, is it possible to prove that certain actions are wrong without belief in a supernatural God?

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.

What do you think?

(Also it's worth noting that I'm talking about objective morality)

Objective morality doesn't exist. Even if God existed, His morals wouldn't be objective, they would just be the subjective morals of a very powerful being.

Indeed, saying that god's morals would be somehow objective or correct is merely adopting the principle that might makes right and morality can be determined by physical force. I daresay that most people would agree that such a principle is utterly outrageous and cannot serve as a source for moral reasoning.

[Pandeeria]

I mean, it's not really that being alive is inherently better then being dead, it's just animals that value being alive typically do better then those that do not, and have more reproductive success. Though there are exceptions...

When your dead, you can't experience a lot of good things. Thats why being alive is better than being dead.

You don't experience anything when you're dead. Because you're dead. You don't exist. You literally cannot even know that you're dead because you don't exist, and you need to exist to perceive things such as death.

It would be better phrased as "When your dead, you can't experience anything. That's why being alive is better than being dead."

[Pandeeria]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't morality a non physical thing? Yes most of us have a sense of morality, though it usually differs from person to person. I know that is a rather dumb argument, but it's not my point. If it's difficult to even prove whether we ourselves exist, is it possible to prove that certain actions are wrong without belief in a supernatural God?

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.

What do you think?

(Also it's worth noting that I'm talking about objective morality)

Objective morality doesn't exist. Even if God existed, His morals wouldn't be objective, they would just be the subjective morals of a very powerful being.

It could be argued that your morals are objective, while everyone else is subjective. Objectiveness itself could be considered subjective.

You experience everything from your point of view. You are the center of the universe, you are the main character, as you experience everything only through your senses. From your point of view, your morals seem perfectly alright, and are essentially subjective, while everyone else has wrong morals of varying degrees of wrongness.

To you, your morals are right while others are wrong.

[RSDLP]

When your dead, you can't experience a lot of good things. Thats why being alive is better than being dead.

You don't experience anything when you're dead. Because you're dead. You don't exist. You literally cannot even know that you're dead because you don't exist, and you need to exist to perceive things such as death.

It would be better phrased as "When your dead, you can't experience anything. That's why being alive is better than being dead."

But that presumes that experiencing things is somehow intrinsically better than experiencing nothing. I could just as easily say that being dead, or not having been born in the first place, is better than being alive for the exact same reason.

[Pandeeria]

You don't experience anything when you're dead. Because you're dead. You don't exist. You literally cannot even know that you're dead because you don't exist, and you need to exist to perceive things such as death.

It would be better phrased as "When your dead, you can't experience anything. That's why being alive is better than being dead."

But that presumes that experiencing things is somehow intrinsically better than not experiencing nothing. I could just as easily say that being dead, or not having been born in the first place, is better than being alive for the exact same reason.

I think being able to experience anything at all is better then experiencing nothing.

[RSDLP]

But that presumes that experiencing things is somehow intrinsically better than not experiencing nothing. I could just as easily say that being dead, or not having been born in the first place, is better than being alive for the exact same reason.

I think being able to experience anything at all is better then experiencing nothing.

That's just an arbitrary assumption, however, and, considering the amount of suffering in the world, a highly questionable one.

[Pandeeria]

I think being able to experience anything at all is better then experiencing nothing.

That's just an arbitrary assumption, however, and, considering the amount of suffering in the world, a highly questionable one.

I believe that unless you've killed yourself or are actively trying to kill yourself, then you accept this on some level:

It's better to experience something rather than to experience nothing.

If you genuinely thought experiencing nothing was better, you would logically be trying to end your own life as you'd rather not experience anything than something. As I believe, it is superior to experience something rather then nothing because at least you are experiencing something. At least you are receiving stimulation, you can actually think and feel and have emotions when you experience something. You can experience both the ups and downs of life, which is both exciting and interesting. You get the freedom to do what you want to do when you experience something. You can't when you are dead.

[RSDLP]

If you genuinely thought experiencing nothing was better, you would logically be trying to end your own life as you'd rather not experience anything than something.

That doesn't follow. Even if I thought that experiencing nothing was better than experiencing something- I don't, I hold that they are exactly equal and that there is no reason to prefer one state over the other- compassion and caring for would be a sufficient reason to continue existing.

As I believe, it is superior to experience something rather then nothing because at least you are experiencing something. At least you are receiving stimulation, you can actually think and feel and have emotions when you experience something. You can experience both the ups and downs of life, which is both exciting and interesting. You get the freedom to do what you want to do when you experience something. You can't when you are dead.

You experience all sorts of pain and unpleasant thing as well and it is easily demonstrable that the lives of the overwhelming majority of people in history have been more painful than pleasant. Beyond that, their is no objective, scientific, reason to prefer existing. It is a subjective value judgment made for the sole reason that you are already existing. If I argued objectively that it is better for my room to be painted gray than blue because it is already gray, you would tear my argument to pieces in a matter of seconds; how is your contention different?

[Pandeeria]

If you genuinely thought experiencing nothing was better, you would logically be trying to end your own life as you'd rather not experience anything than something.

That doesn't follow. Even if I thought that experiencing nothing was better than experiencing something- I don't, I hold that they are exactly equal and that there is no reason to prefer one state over the other- compassion and caring for would be a sufficient reason to continue existing.

As I believe, it is superior to experience something rather then nothing because at least you are experiencing something. At least you are receiving stimulation, you can actually think and feel and have emotions when you experience something. You can experience both the ups and downs of life, which is both exciting and interesting. You get the freedom to do what you want to do when you experience something. You can't when you are dead.

You experience all sorts of pain and unpleasant thing as well and it is easily demonstrable that the lives of the overwhelming majority of people in history have been more painful than pleasant. Beyond that, their is no objective, scientific, reason to prefer existing. It is a subjective value judgment made for the sole reason that you are already existing. If I argued objectively that it is better for my room to be painted gray than blue because it is already gray, you would tear my argument to pieces in a matter of seconds; how is your contention different?

Considering them equal is something else different, but if you consider no experiences what so ever better to any experience, then the only logical thing to do is accelerate the process of death so you can achieve no experience of anything.

When you can't experience anything, you cannot feel, you cannot speak nor hear, you cannot make any choices, you cannot be an individual, you cannot have any good thoughts, you can't have any thoughts at all.

I wish we could agree that being able to think, speak, and have emotions is objectively better then not being able to have them.

[RSDLP]

if you consider no experiences what so ever better to any experience, then the only logical thing to do is accelerate the process of death so you can achieve no experience of anything.

That's simply it true because it ignores the fact that there is more than one actor in the equation and that not all actors make the same value judgments. Someone could very easily prefer nonexistence, but decide to continue existing as long as possible for the sake of other people who prefer existing and will continue to exist.

When you can't experience anything, you cannot feel, you cannot speak nor hear, you cannot make any choices, you cannot be an individual, you cannot have any good thoughts, you can't have any thoughts at all.

And?

I wish we could agree that being able to think, speak, and have emotions is objectively better then not being able to have them.

Then provide evidence for it. Until you can provide actual evidence, the contention that existence is better than nonexistence is merely an arbitrary value judgment without any objective foundation.

[Vitaphone Racing]

if you consider no experiences what so ever better to any experience, then the only logical thing to do is accelerate the process of death so you can achieve no experience of anything.

That's simply it true because it ignores the fact that there is more than one actor in the equation and that not all actors make the same value judgments. Someone could very easily prefer nonexistence, but decide to continue existing as long as possible for the sake of other people who prefer existing and will continue to exist.

When you can't experience anything, you cannot feel, you cannot speak nor hear, you cannot make any choices, you cannot be an individual, you cannot have any good thoughts, you can't have any thoughts at all.

And?

I wish we could agree that being able to think, speak, and have emotions is objectively better then not being able to have them.

Then provide evidence for it. Until you can provide actual evidence, the contention that existence is better than nonexistence is merely an arbitrary value judgment without any objective foundation.

What's your main account?

[Pandeeria]

if you consider no experiences what so ever better to any experience, then the only logical thing to do is accelerate the process of death so you can achieve no experience of anything.

That's simply it true because it ignores the fact that there is more than one actor in the equation and that not all actors make the same value judgments. Someone could very easily prefer nonexistence, but decide to continue existing as long as possible for the sake of other people who prefer existing and will continue to exist.

When you can't experience anything, you cannot feel, you cannot speak nor hear, you cannot make any choices, you cannot be an individual, you cannot have any good thoughts, you can't have any thoughts at all.

And?

I wish we could agree that being able to think, speak, and have emotions is objectively better then not being able to have them.

Then provide evidence for it. Until you can provide actual evidence, the contention that existence is better than nonexistence is merely an arbitrary value judgment without any objective foundation.

I'm assuming you wouldn't mind then having your right of speech and thought to be stripped away from you, yes?

[RSDLP]

What's your main account?

This account is the only one I am active with at the moment. Why do you ask?

I'm assuming you wouldn't mind then having your right of speech and thought to be stripped away from you, yes?

Where did you get that bit of nonsense from?

[Pandeeria]

What's your main account?

This account is the only one I am active with at the moment. Why do you ask?

I'm assuming you wouldn't mind then having your right of speech and thought to be stripped away from you, yes?

Where did you get that bit of nonsense from?

Being able to speak and think aren't objectively good, according to you. So you wouldn't mind being stripped of your right to speak and think, yes?

If you would prefer to keep your right to speak and think, you then concede it is better be able to speak and think then not being able to.

If you don't mind being stripped of that right, then I really don't know what to say to you.

[Socialist Tera]

Of course, there is. Before Moses and Jesus crime was not excessively rampant, not that I believe Jesus was the messiah.