Discussion Thread

[Husker_x]

Two men are walking through a deserted part of the world, many days walk from a food source. They stumble upon a skinny apple tree on the plain with a single ripe apple hanging from it. Rational self-interest would dictate that you take the apple regardless of the cost. If the other man tries to take the apple, you kill him and take it for yourself. Is this moral?

 

Since each man's own life is his objective standard, it follows that whatever serves or enhances his life and well-being is good, and whatever damages or destroys it is wrong.

 

This line of reasoning appears to be so blatantly self-contradictory that it precludes even bothering with the rest. Each man's standard is his objective standard. Then what happens when two men have competing standards? There are people in this world who are not human inside. They derive pleasure almost exclusively from the harm they can cause others. Therefore their personal objective standard of happiness is the destruction they cause. If their standard is absolute, their actions are not immoral. To argue this would be essentially to deny morality as a concept holds any value, which it seemingly doesn't in an atheistic universe. A 'rational morality' equals nothing more or less than doing whatever you please, and is itself a denial or objective morality. It is moral relativism with a thick side of Darwin.

Your first example is a false dichotomy because # 1. the world we live in is full of endless options and choices, each depending on the ability of the individual, in each scenario, to think. It's rarely the choice of kill or be killed, though those types of situations do occur, and in this case, couldn't they also share the apple. And #2. Even if that was the case, you'd have to look at the property rights issue, who discovered the apple first. Also, if the person would die without the apple would that not constitute self defense and then absolutely the killing of the other man would be moral and justified.

 

On your second point, I don't see the contradiction. Does the idea of conflict resolution ever occur to you, that maybe it would be in the best interest of each individual to work ot their problems. Once again your seeing each situation as either live and kill or die, that is a false dichotomy. You also think that people receive joy from the pain of others, and while this may be true, those people are definitely not looking out for their own best interest. For starters initiating force against others leaves one open to the possibility of being hurt and others initiating force against you. Also, it leaves the initiator accountable for the consequences of hurting others. How would either of those be in any individuals best interest?

 

On point one, I rest my case. Rational self-interest has now been demonstrated to be ethically and morally bankrupt. Initiating force to preserve your own life when not under direct attack from another individual is considered moral. You have now stepped into moral relativism, which is a logical road to go down, but a terrifying one.

 

I'm using the extremes because this is a philosophical, not a pragmatic, discussion. It is possible for a human being to not believe that preserving his life is in his best interest, or goodness, or love, or justice, for that matter. There are genuinely strange people––we'd normally call them evil––that derive purpose and pleasure from pure acts of cruelty and destruction, perhaps even their own destruction. By your own moral code, whatever is in an individual's personal interest, that thing is morality. You cannot then argue that one of these people––however marginal––is immoral, but rather you may only argue that his standard competes with yours. May the stronger party win.

 

Most day to day moral conundrums are easily solved with a little thought. This isn't the issue. The issue is what do you do when you have two mutually exclusive ideologies? What if one of them isn't willing to live and let live. What if one of them doesn't factor in your rights as even slightly important in their moral viewpoint? What do you do? (Hint: Luke used it to blow up the Death Star.)

I think you just proved my point. Society dictates a person's morality but the individual is the ultimate arbiter on their own decisions. This is what morality is.

 

Terrific. You're a moral relativist. I'm glad that you own up to that. Many atheist big-wigs like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens pretend to Moral Absolutes, which seems completely contradictory to their specific worldview. I would point out, however, that morality has lost all meaning as a traditional concept in your view. One simply does whatever one wishes regardless of what the majority opinion might be. It does not matter what that action is––charity, theft, mercy, rape, etc.––because one's personal worldview is the ultimate dictating force. Even societies have divergent morality, so the pretense of any standard is an abject fiction; good and evil are matters of opinion.

[Husker_x]

Two men are walking through a deserted part of the world, many days walk from a food source. They stumble upon a skinny apple tree on the plain with a single ripe apple hanging from it. Rational self-interest would dictate that you take the apple regardless of the cost. If the other man tries to take the apple, you kill him and take it for yourself. Is this moral?

 

Since each man's own life is his objective standard, it follows that whatever serves or enhances his life and well-being is good, and whatever damages or destroys it is wrong.

 

This line of reasoning appears to be so blatantly self-contradictory that it precludes even bothering with the rest. Each man's standard is his objective standard. Then what happens when two men have competing standards? There are people in this world who are not human inside. They derive pleasure almost exclusively from the harm they can cause others. Therefore their personal objective standard of happiness is the destruction they cause. If their standard is absolute, their actions are not immoral. To argue this would be essentially to deny morality as a concept holds any value, which it seemingly doesn't in an atheistic universe. A 'rational morality' equals nothing more or less than doing whatever you please, and is itself a denial or objective morality. It is moral relativism with a thick side of Darwin.

Your first example is a false dichotomy because # 1. the world we live in is full of endless options and choices, each depending on the ability of the individual, in each scenario, to think. It's rarely the choice of kill or be killed, though those types of situations do occur, and in this case, couldn't they also share the apple. And #2. Even if that was the case, you'd have to look at the property rights issue, who discovered the apple first. Also, if the person would die without the apple would that not constitute self defense and then absolutely the killing of the other man would be moral and justified.

 

On your second point, I don't see the contradiction. Does the idea of conflict resolution ever occur to you, that maybe it would be in the best interest of each individual to work ot their problems. Once again your seeing each situation as either live and kill or die, that is a false dichotomy. You also think that people receive joy from the pain of others, and while this may be true, those people are definitely not looking out for their own best interest. For starters initiating force against others leaves one open to the possibility of being hurt and others initiating force against you. Also, it leaves the initiator accountable for the consequences of hurting others. How would either of those be in any individuals best interest?

 

On point one, I rest my case. Rational self-interest has now been demonstrated to be ethically and morally bankrupt. Initiating force to preserve your own life when not under direct attack from another individual is considered moral. You have now stepped into moral relativism, which is a logical road to go down, but a terrifying one.

 

I'm using the extremes because this is a philosophical, not a pragmatic, discussion. It is possible for a human being to not believe that preserving his life is in his best interest, or goodness, or love, or justice, for that matter. There are genuinely strange people––we'd normally call them evil––that derive purpose and pleasure from pure acts of cruelty and destruction, perhaps even their own destruction. By your own moral code, whatever is in an individual's personal interest, that thing is morality. You cannot then argue that one of these people––however marginal––is immoral, but rather you may only argue that his standard competes with yours. May the stronger party win.

 

Most day to day moral conundrums are easily solved with a little thought. This isn't the issue. The issue is what do you do when you have two mutually exclusive ideologies? What if one of them isn't willing to live and let live. What if one of them doesn't factor in your rights as even slightly important in their moral viewpoint? What do you do? (Hint: Luke used it to blow up the Death Star.)

 

How did you rest your case? You stated a scenario that cannot possible happen, how does that help your argument?

 

I rest my case because my argument makes itself. Rational Self-interest Morality is simply code for moral relativism or doing whatever you wish regardless of the consequences. All I need to do is demonstrate a single situation where a hypothetical person would find it in his best interest to needlessly kill someone else and that person could not possibly be accused of an immoral action. There seems to be a fallacious tenant to this belief system that all people who see morality this way necessarily take the traditional view on good and evil. This is not even remotely required. Someone out there sees it in his best interest to set fire to as many houses as he can––it's the only way he can feel pleasure or thrill. In his Rational Self-interest Morality, his fire starting is nothing more than a positive outworking of his own morality.

[huskerjack23]

Two men are walking through a deserted part of the world, many days walk from a food source. They stumble upon a skinny apple tree on the plain with a single ripe apple hanging from it. Rational self-interest would dictate that you take the apple regardless of the cost. If the other man tries to take the apple, you kill him and take it for yourself. Is this moral?

 

Since each man's own life is his objective standard, it follows that whatever serves or enhances his life and well-being is good, and whatever damages or destroys it is wrong.

 

This line of reasoning appears to be so blatantly self-contradictory that it precludes even bothering with the rest. Each man's standard is his objective standard. Then what happens when two men have competing standards? There are people in this world who are not human inside. They derive pleasure almost exclusively from the harm they can cause others. Therefore their personal objective standard of happiness is the destruction they cause. If their standard is absolute, their actions are not immoral. To argue this would be essentially to deny morality as a concept holds any value, which it seemingly doesn't in an atheistic universe. A 'rational morality' equals nothing more or less than doing whatever you please, and is itself a denial or objective morality. It is moral relativism with a thick side of Darwin.

Your first example is a false dichotomy because # 1. the world we live in is full of endless options and choices, each depending on the ability of the individual, in each scenario, to think. It's rarely the choice of kill or be killed, though those types of situations do occur, and in this case, couldn't they also share the apple. And #2. Even if that was the case, you'd have to look at the property rights issue, who discovered the apple first. Also, if the person would die without the apple would that not constitute self defense and then absolutely the killing of the other man would be moral and justified.

 

On your second point, I don't see the contradiction. Does the idea of conflict resolution ever occur to you, that maybe it would be in the best interest of each individual to work ot their problems. Once again your seeing each situation as either live and kill or die, that is a false dichotomy. You also think that people receive joy from the pain of others, and while this may be true, those people are definitely not looking out for their own best interest. For starters initiating force against others leaves one open to the possibility of being hurt and others initiating force against you. Also, it leaves the initiator accountable for the consequences of hurting others. How would either of those be in any individuals best interest?

 

On point one, I rest my case. Rational self-interest has now been demonstrated to be ethically and morally bankrupt. Initiating force to preserve your own life when not under direct attack from another individual is considered moral. You have now stepped into moral relativism, which is a logical road to go down, but a terrifying one.

 

I'm using the extremes because this is a philosophical, not a pragmatic, discussion. It is possible for a human being to not believe that preserving his life is in his best interest, or goodness, or love, or justice, for that matter. There are genuinely strange people––we'd normally call them evil––that derive purpose and pleasure from pure acts of cruelty and destruction, perhaps even their own destruction. By your own moral code, whatever is in an individual's personal interest, that thing is morality. You cannot then argue that one of these people––however marginal––is immoral, but rather you may only argue that his standard competes with yours. May the stronger party win.

 

Most day to day moral conundrums are easily solved with a little thought. This isn't the issue. The issue is what do you do when you have two mutually exclusive ideologies? What if one of them isn't willing to live and let live. What if one of them doesn't factor in your rights as even slightly important in their moral viewpoint? What do you do? (Hint: Luke used it to blow up the Death Star.)

I think you just proved my point. Society dictates a person's morality but the individual is the ultimate arbiter on their own decisions. This is what morality is.

 

Terrific. You're a moral relativist. I'm glad that you own up to that. Many atheist big-wigs like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens pretend to Moral Absolutes, which seems completely contradictory to their specific worldview. I would point out, however, that morality has lost all meaning as a traditional concept in your view. One simply does whatever one wishes regardless of what the majority opinion might be. It does not matter what that action is––charity, theft, mercy, rape, etc.––because one's personal worldview is the ultimate dictating force. Even societies have divergent morality, so the pretense of any standard is an abject fiction; good and evil are matters of opinion.

That makes no sense at all. Do I want to go to jail? Do I want others to treat me with equally immoral actions as theft, rape, murder?

 

http://blip.tv/file/2739748 Skip ahead to 31:00.

 

This one really helps out. Especially towards the end of his spiel with the caller.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Two men are walking through a deserted part of the world, many days walk from a food source. They stumble upon a skinny apple tree on the plain with a single ripe apple hanging from it. Rational self-interest would dictate that you take the apple regardless of the cost. If the other man tries to take the apple, you kill him and take it for yourself. Is this moral?

 

Since each man's own life is his objective standard, it follows that whatever serves or enhances his life and well-being is good, and whatever damages or destroys it is wrong.

 

This line of reasoning appears to be so blatantly self-contradictory that it precludes even bothering with the rest. Each man's standard is his objective standard. Then what happens when two men have competing standards? There are people in this world who are not human inside. They derive pleasure almost exclusively from the harm they can cause others. Therefore their personal objective standard of happiness is the destruction they cause. If their standard is absolute, their actions are not immoral. To argue this would be essentially to deny morality as a concept holds any value, which it seemingly doesn't in an atheistic universe. A 'rational morality' equals nothing more or less than doing whatever you please, and is itself a denial or objective morality. It is moral relativism with a thick side of Darwin.

Your first example is a false dichotomy because # 1. the world we live in is full of endless options and choices, each depending on the ability of the individual, in each scenario, to think. It's rarely the choice of kill or be killed, though those types of situations do occur, and in this case, couldn't they also share the apple. And #2. Even if that was the case, you'd have to look at the property rights issue, who discovered the apple first. Also, if the person would die without the apple would that not constitute self defense and then absolutely the killing of the other man would be moral and justified.

 

On your second point, I don't see the contradiction. Does the idea of conflict resolution ever occur to you, that maybe it would be in the best interest of each individual to work ot their problems. Once again your seeing each situation as either live and kill or die, that is a false dichotomy. You also think that people receive joy from the pain of others, and while this may be true, those people are definitely not looking out for their own best interest. For starters initiating force against others leaves one open to the possibility of being hurt and others initiating force against you. Also, it leaves the initiator accountable for the consequences of hurting others. How would either of those be in any individuals best interest?

 

On point one, I rest my case. Rational self-interest has now been demonstrated to be ethically and morally bankrupt. Initiating force to preserve your own life when not under direct attack from another individual is considered moral. You have now stepped into moral relativism, which is a logical road to go down, but a terrifying one.

 

I'm using the extremes because this is a philosophical, not a pragmatic, discussion. It is possible for a human being to not believe that preserving his life is in his best interest, or goodness, or love, or justice, for that matter. There are genuinely strange people––we'd normally call them evil––that derive purpose and pleasure from pure acts of cruelty and destruction, perhaps even their own destruction. By your own moral code, whatever is in an individual's personal interest, that thing is morality. You cannot then argue that one of these people––however marginal––is immoral, but rather you may only argue that his standard competes with yours. May the stronger party win.

 

Most day to day moral conundrums are easily solved with a little thought. This isn't the issue. The issue is what do you do when you have two mutually exclusive ideologies? What if one of them isn't willing to live and let live. What if one of them doesn't factor in your rights as even slightly important in their moral viewpoint? What do you do? (Hint: Luke used it to blow up the Death Star.)

 

How did you rest your case? You stated a scenario that cannot possible happen, how does that help your argument?

 

I rest my case because my argument makes itself. Rational Self-interest Morality is simply code for moral relativism or doing whatever you wish regardless of the consequences. All I need to do is demonstrate a single situation where a hypothetical person would find it in his best interest to needlessly kill someone else and that person could not possibly be accused of an immoral action. There seems to be a fallacious tenant to this belief system that all people who see morality this way necessarily take the traditional view on good and evil. This is not even remotely required. Someone out there sees it in his best interest to set fire to as many houses as he can––it's the only way he can feel pleasure or thrill. In his Rational Self-interest Morality, his fire starting is nothing more than a positive outworking of his own morality.

Wait a minute!! Rational self-interest morality is not what you do regardless of the consequences; it’s making a decision and acting with the consequences in mind. If not, it would not be rational. Being rational requires thinking. A rational being, looking out for their own self-interest, does not murder or violate others because the consequences would not be in their best interest. How could it be in anyone’s best interest to be killed, locked up, forced to make reparations or suffer any other consequence for a crime that puts a person’s life and well-being in the hands of others?

[Husker_x]

Two men are walking through a deserted part of the world, many days walk from a food source. They stumble upon a skinny apple tree on the plain with a single ripe apple hanging from it. Rational self-interest would dictate that you take the apple regardless of the cost. If the other man tries to take the apple, you kill him and take it for yourself. Is this moral?

 

Since each man's own life is his objective standard, it follows that whatever serves or enhances his life and well-being is good, and whatever damages or destroys it is wrong.

 

This line of reasoning appears to be so blatantly self-contradictory that it precludes even bothering with the rest. Each man's standard is his objective standard. Then what happens when two men have competing standards? There are people in this world who are not human inside. They derive pleasure almost exclusively from the harm they can cause others. Therefore their personal objective standard of happiness is the destruction they cause. If their standard is absolute, their actions are not immoral. To argue this would be essentially to deny morality as a concept holds any value, which it seemingly doesn't in an atheistic universe. A 'rational morality' equals nothing more or less than doing whatever you please, and is itself a denial or objective morality. It is moral relativism with a thick side of Darwin.

Your first example is a false dichotomy because # 1. the world we live in is full of endless options and choices, each depending on the ability of the individual, in each scenario, to think. It's rarely the choice of kill or be killed, though those types of situations do occur, and in this case, couldn't they also share the apple. And #2. Even if that was the case, you'd have to look at the property rights issue, who discovered the apple first. Also, if the person would die without the apple would that not constitute self defense and then absolutely the killing of the other man would be moral and justified.

 

On your second point, I don't see the contradiction. Does the idea of conflict resolution ever occur to you, that maybe it would be in the best interest of each individual to work ot their problems. Once again your seeing each situation as either live and kill or die, that is a false dichotomy. You also think that people receive joy from the pain of others, and while this may be true, those people are definitely not looking out for their own best interest. For starters initiating force against others leaves one open to the possibility of being hurt and others initiating force against you. Also, it leaves the initiator accountable for the consequences of hurting others. How would either of those be in any individuals best interest?

 

On point one, I rest my case. Rational self-interest has now been demonstrated to be ethically and morally bankrupt. Initiating force to preserve your own life when not under direct attack from another individual is considered moral. You have now stepped into moral relativism, which is a logical road to go down, but a terrifying one.

 

I'm using the extremes because this is a philosophical, not a pragmatic, discussion. It is possible for a human being to not believe that preserving his life is in his best interest, or goodness, or love, or justice, for that matter. There are genuinely strange people––we'd normally call them evil––that derive purpose and pleasure from pure acts of cruelty and destruction, perhaps even their own destruction. By your own moral code, whatever is in an individual's personal interest, that thing is morality. You cannot then argue that one of these people––however marginal––is immoral, but rather you may only argue that his standard competes with yours. May the stronger party win.

 

Most day to day moral conundrums are easily solved with a little thought. This isn't the issue. The issue is what do you do when you have two mutually exclusive ideologies? What if one of them isn't willing to live and let live. What if one of them doesn't factor in your rights as even slightly important in their moral viewpoint? What do you do? (Hint: Luke used it to blow up the Death Star.)

I think you just proved my point. Society dictates a person's morality but the individual is the ultimate arbiter on their own decisions. This is what morality is.

 

Terrific. You're a moral relativist. I'm glad that you own up to that. Many atheist big-wigs like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens pretend to Moral Absolutes, which seems completely contradictory to their specific worldview. I would point out, however, that morality has lost all meaning as a traditional concept in your view. One simply does whatever one wishes regardless of what the majority opinion might be. It does not matter what that action is––charity, theft, mercy, rape, etc.––because one's personal worldview is the ultimate dictating force. Even societies have divergent morality, so the pretense of any standard is an abject fiction; good and evil are matters of opinion.

That makes no sense at all. Do I want to go to jail? Do I want others to treat me with equally immoral actions as theft, rape, murder?

 

http://blip.tv/file/2739748 Skip ahead to 31:00.

 

This one really helps out. Especially towards the end of his spiel with the caller.

 

It makes perfect sense. Here's why. Up above I posted a response to the first video you shared (I'm going to ignore this one for now as I've watched 5-6 of these videos since the first one and now have a pretty good idea of how/what they're arguing). The basis of morality according to the first video is goal oriented. Which means if (and only if) you presuppose survival as a species to be your personal goal, then what we would normally call morality applies to you (albeit in a looser sense than if you were afraid you'd go to hell forever for breaking it, for instance). Yet YOU are the one that gets to choose whether or not you want survival as a goal. You're human! You know that both your life and this world are someday going to end. It's a license to steal!

 

I also find it odd that you'd invoke the Golden Rule, as well as miss the larger philosophical point. First off, your going to jail is irrelevant. You could very well be a thief for a day without 1-getting caught, or 2-destroying the society you love. Also I never said that you personally want to steal, rape, and murder. That would be up to you, but we'd have no way of calling it immoral as it would only constitute a part of your own moral system. Society gives you a suggestion and you can either say "All right" or "f#*k off." But we're not appealing to anything with our morality. It comes from within. Therefore since difference people have different moralities coming from within and thy occasionally contradict, deciding which is better is a matter of opinion. Therefore, morality is relative.

[Husker_x]

Two men are walking through a deserted part of the world, many days walk from a food source. They stumble upon a skinny apple tree on the plain with a single ripe apple hanging from it. Rational self-interest would dictate that you take the apple regardless of the cost. If the other man tries to take the apple, you kill him and take it for yourself. Is this moral?

 

Since each man's own life is his objective standard, it follows that whatever serves or enhances his life and well-being is good, and whatever damages or destroys it is wrong.

 

This line of reasoning appears to be so blatantly self-contradictory that it precludes even bothering with the rest. Each man's standard is his objective standard. Then what happens when two men have competing standards? There are people in this world who are not human inside. They derive pleasure almost exclusively from the harm they can cause others. Therefore their personal objective standard of happiness is the destruction they cause. If their standard is absolute, their actions are not immoral. To argue this would be essentially to deny morality as a concept holds any value, which it seemingly doesn't in an atheistic universe. A 'rational morality' equals nothing more or less than doing whatever you please, and is itself a denial or objective morality. It is moral relativism with a thick side of Darwin.

Your first example is a false dichotomy because # 1. the world we live in is full of endless options and choices, each depending on the ability of the individual, in each scenario, to think. It's rarely the choice of kill or be killed, though those types of situations do occur, and in this case, couldn't they also share the apple. And #2. Even if that was the case, you'd have to look at the property rights issue, who discovered the apple first. Also, if the person would die without the apple would that not constitute self defense and then absolutely the killing of the other man would be moral and justified.

 

On your second point, I don't see the contradiction. Does the idea of conflict resolution ever occur to you, that maybe it would be in the best interest of each individual to work ot their problems. Once again your seeing each situation as either live and kill or die, that is a false dichotomy. You also think that people receive joy from the pain of others, and while this may be true, those people are definitely not looking out for their own best interest. For starters initiating force against others leaves one open to the possibility of being hurt and others initiating force against you. Also, it leaves the initiator accountable for the consequences of hurting others. How would either of those be in any individuals best interest?

 

On point one, I rest my case. Rational self-interest has now been demonstrated to be ethically and morally bankrupt. Initiating force to preserve your own life when not under direct attack from another individual is considered moral. You have now stepped into moral relativism, which is a logical road to go down, but a terrifying one.

 

I'm using the extremes because this is a philosophical, not a pragmatic, discussion. It is possible for a human being to not believe that preserving his life is in his best interest, or goodness, or love, or justice, for that matter. There are genuinely strange people––we'd normally call them evil––that derive purpose and pleasure from pure acts of cruelty and destruction, perhaps even their own destruction. By your own moral code, whatever is in an individual's personal interest, that thing is morality. You cannot then argue that one of these people––however marginal––is immoral, but rather you may only argue that his standard competes with yours. May the stronger party win.

 

Most day to day moral conundrums are easily solved with a little thought. This isn't the issue. The issue is what do you do when you have two mutually exclusive ideologies? What if one of them isn't willing to live and let live. What if one of them doesn't factor in your rights as even slightly important in their moral viewpoint? What do you do? (Hint: Luke used it to blow up the Death Star.)

 

How did you rest your case? You stated a scenario that cannot possible happen, how does that help your argument?

 

I rest my case because my argument makes itself. Rational Self-interest Morality is simply code for moral relativism or doing whatever you wish regardless of the consequences. All I need to do is demonstrate a single situation where a hypothetical person would find it in his best interest to needlessly kill someone else and that person could not possibly be accused of an immoral action. There seems to be a fallacious tenant to this belief system that all people who see morality this way necessarily take the traditional view on good and evil. This is not even remotely required. Someone out there sees it in his best interest to set fire to as many houses as he can––it's the only way he can feel pleasure or thrill. In his Rational Self-interest Morality, his fire starting is nothing more than a positive outworking of his own morality.

Wait a minute!! Rational self-interest morality is not what you do regardless of the consequences; it’s making a decision and acting with the consequences in mind. If not, it would not be rational. Being rational requires thinking. A rational being, looking out for their own self-interest, does not murder or violate others because the consequences would not be in their best interest. How could it be in anyone’s best interest to be killed, locked up, forced to make reparations or suffer any other consequence for a crime that puts a person’s life and well-being in the hands of others?

 

A really rational being would know there are ways to harm others without suffering any consequences at all. Also, you've ignored my point about a being who doesn't take his self-interest to heart. You do know that human beings can override their survival instinct and commit suicide, right? Well take the example of a masochist, who feels pleasure solely through the pain he causes himself or others cause him. Is he immoral for being this way? Of course not; he's only acting out of what he sees as his own self interest. Normal people may find it repugnant, but morality isn't a question of what most people find moral. If an atheist anarchist looked at the world, he might judge the following: I am going to die regardless of what I do; the species is going to die regardless of what I do; therefore I have no pressing reason to behave in a logical or pleasant way towards people.

 

You can hate this view. You can try to destroy those who have this view. You can protect yourself from people who hold this view. But you cannot rationally discredit this view, which is the point. Rational self interest isn't determined as much by rationality as what you deem to be in your best interest. We may call this masochist/serial killers/rapists/fire starters insane, but in their own minds their world is right side up, not upside down.

[SOCALHUSKER]

An excellent article on Proving Morality An excerpt is below. To read the entire article click the link.

 

To start from the very beginning… do moral rules – or consistently preferred human behaviour – exist at all?

 

There are only two possibilities when it comes to moral rules, just as there are in any logical science. Either moral rules exist, or they do not. (In physics, the question is: either physical rules exist, or they do not.)

 

If moral rules do exist, where do they exist? Certainly not in material reality, which does not contain or obey a single moral rule. Moral rules are different from the rules of physics, just as the scientific method is different from gravity. Matter innately obeys the rule of gravity or the second law of thermodynamics, but ‘thou shalt not kill’ is nowhere inscribed in the nature of things. Physical laws describe the behaviour of matter, but do not contain a single prescription. Science says that matter behaves in a certain manner – never that it should behave in a certain manner. A theory of gravity proves that if you push a man off a cliff, he will fall. It will not tell you whether you should push him or not.

 

Thus it cannot be said that moral rules exist in material reality, and neither are they automatically obeyed like the laws of physics – which does not mean that moral laws are false or irrelevant. The scientific method does not exist in reality either – and is also optional – but it is neither false nor irrelevant.

 

Subjecting moral theories to the scientific method will provide the same benefits that subjecting physical theories to the scientific method did. Before the rise of the scientific method, the behaviour of matter resulted from the subjective whim of gods and devils – just as morality is now. Volcanoes erupted because the mountain-god was angry; good harvests resulted from human sacrifice. No absolute physical laws which limited the will of the gods were believed to exist – and so science could never develop. Those who profited from defining physical reality as subjective – mostly priests and kings – fought the subjugation of physical theories to the scientific method, just as those who profit from defining moral reality as subjective – mostly politicians and soldiers – fight the subjugation of moral theories to the scientific method.

 

The rise of scientific truth resulted from the expansion of the scientific method, which was a methodology for separating accurate from inaccurate theories by subjecting them to two central tests: logical consistency and empirical observation – and by always subjugating logical consistency to empirical observation. If I propose a perfectly consistent and logical theory which says that a rock will float up when thrown off a cliff, any empirical test proves my theory incorrect, since observation always trumps theory.

 

A further aspect of the scientific method is the belief that, since matter is composed of combinations of atoms with common, stable and predictable properties, the behaviour of matter must also be common, stable and predictable. Thus experiments must be reproducible in different locations and time. I cannot say that my ‘rock floating’ theory is correct for just one particular rock, or on the day I first tested it, or at a single location. My theories must describe the behaviour of matter, which is universal, common, stable and predictable.

 

Finally, there is a generally-accepted rule – sometimes called Occam’s Razor – which states that, of any two explanations, the simpler is probably the more accurate. Prior to the Copernican revolution, when Earth was considered the center of the universe, the retrograde motion of Mars when Earth passed it in orbit around the sun caused enormous problems to the Ptolemaic system of astronomical calculations. ‘Circles within circles’ multiplied enormously, which were all cleared away by simply placing the sun at the center of the solar system.

 

Thus any valid scientific theory must be (a) universal, (B) logical, © empirically verifiable, (d) reproducible and (e) as simple as possible.

 

Now the methodology for judging and proving a moral theory is exactly the same as the methodology for judging and proving any other scientific theory.

 

The first question regarding moral theories is: what are they? Simply put, morals are a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify preferred human behaviours, just as physics is a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify the behaviour of matter.

 

The second question to be asked is: is there any such thing as ‘preferred behaviour’ at all? If there is, we can begin to explore what such behaviour might be. If not, then our examination must stop here – just as the examination of ‘ether’ ceased after Einstein proved that the speed of light was constant.

 

The proposition that there is no such thing as preferred behaviour contains an insurmountable number of logical and empirical problems. ‘Preferred behaviour’ must exist, for five main reasons. The first is logical: if I argue against the proposition that preferred behaviour exists, I have already shown my preference for truth over falsehood – as well as a preference for correcting those who speak falsely. Saying that there is no such as thing as preferred behaviour is like shouting in someone’s ear that sound does not exist – it is innately self-contradictory. In other words, if there is no preferred behaviour, then one should oppose anyone who claims that there is preferred behaviour. However, if one ‘should’ do something, then one has just created preferred behaviour. Thus preferred behaviour – or moral rules – must exist.

 

Syllogistically, this is:

 

The proposition is: preferred behaviour must exist.

Anyone who argues against the existence of preferred behaviour is demonstrating preferred behaviour.

Therefore no argument against the existence of preferred behaviour can be valid.

How else do we know that moral rules exist? Well, all matter is subject to physical rules – and everything that is organic is in addition subject to certain requirements, and so, if it is alive, has followed preferred behaviours. Everything that lives, for instance, needs fuel and oxygen in order to stay alive – even plants strain for sunlight. Any living mind, of course, is an organic part of the physical world, and so must be subject to both physical laws and has followed preferred behaviours – to argue otherwise would require proof that consciousness is not composed of matter, and is not organic – an impossibility, since it has mass, energy, and life. Arguing that consciousness is subjected to neither physical rules or preferential choices would be like arguing that human beings are not subject to gravity and can flourish without eating. Thus it is impossible that anyone can argue against preferred behaviour, since if he is alive to argue, he has followed preferred behaviours such as breathing, eating and drinking.

 

Or:

 

All living organisms require preferred behaviour to live.

Man is a living organism.

Therefore all living men are alive due to the existence and practice of preferred behaviour.

Therefore any argument against preferred behaviour requires the existence of preferred behaviour.

Therefore no argument against the existence of preferred behaviour can be valid.

Since the scientific method requires empirical corroboration, we must also look to reality to confirm our hypothesis – and here the existence of preferred behaviours is fully supported. Almost every human being believes in moral rules of some kind. There is much disagreement about what constitutes moral rules, but everyone is certain that moral rules are valid – just as scientific theories disagree, but all scientists accept the validity of the scientific method itself. Disproving something that everyone believes in is almost impossible. One can argue that the Earth is round and not flat – which is analogous to changing the definition of morality – but one cannot argue that the earth does not exist at all – which is like arguing that there is no such thing as preferred behaviour.

 

Or:

 

For a scientific theory to be valid, it must be supported through empirical observation.

If preferred behaviour exists, then mankind should believe in preferred behaviour.

Almost all men believe in preferred behaviour.

Therefore empirical evidence exists to support the existence of preferred behaviour – and the existence of such evidence opposes the proposition that preferred behaviour does not exist.

The fourth argument for the existence of preferred behaviour is also empirical. Since human beings have an almost-infinite number of choices to make in life, to say that there are no principles of preferred behaviour would be to say that all choices are equal. However, all choices are not equal, either logically or through empirical observation. To take one example, if food is available, almost all human beings eat every day. If not themselves subjected to violence, human beings are generally not violent. Almost all parents choose to feed and shelter their children. There are many examples of common choices among humankind, which indicate that preferential behaviour abounds and is part of human nature – and requires that any theory claiming otherwise must explain away this teeming evidence.

 

Or:

 

Choices are almost infinite.

Most human beings make very similar choices.

Therefore not all choices can be equal.

Therefore preferred choices must exist.

The fifth argument for the existence of preferred behaviour is biological. Since all organic life requires preferential behaviour, we can assume that those organisms which make the most successful choices are the ones most often selected for survival. Since man is the most successful species, and man’s most distinctive organ is his mind, it must be man’s mind that has aided the most in making successful choices. The mind itself, then, has been selected as successful by its very ability to make successful choices. Since the human mind only exists as a result of choosing preferred behaviour, preferred behaviours must exist.

 

Or:

 

Organisms succeed by acting upon preferred behaviour.

Man is the most successful organism.

Therefore man must have acted most successfully on the basis of preferred behaviour.

Man’s mind is his most distinctive organ.

Therefore man’s mind must have acted most successfully on the basis of preferred behaviour.

Therefore preferred behaviour must exist.

Due to the above problems, any argument against the existence of preferred behaviour can be dismissed as incorrect.

 

Since we have proved the existence of preferred behaviour, the question of morality now shifts. Since preferred behaviour does exist, what theories can quantify, classify, explain and predict it?

 

First of all, we must remember that morality is optional. As we all know, every man is subject to gravity and requires food to live, but no man has to act morally. If I steal or kill, no thunderbolt from the sky strikes me down. Moral rules, like the scientific method or biological classifications, are merely ways of organizing the facts and principles of what exists.

 

The fact that compliance with moral rules is optional has confused many thinkers into believing that because morality is optional, it is subjective. Nothing could be further from the truth! Living organisms are part of material reality, and material reality is rational and objective. Applying moral theories is optional, but that does not mean that moral theories are subjective. The scientific method is optional, but it is not subjective. Applying biological classifications is optional, but biology is not subjective. Choices are optional; consequences are not. I can choose not to eat, but I cannot choose to live without eating. I can choose to behead someone, but I cannot choose whether or not they can live without a head. Morality is thus optional, but the effects of moral choices are measurable and objective. There is no subjectivity involved whatsoever.

[SOCALHUSKER]

A really rational being would know there are ways to harm others without suffering any consequences at all. Also, you've ignored my point about a being who doesn't take his self-interest to heart. You do know that human beings can override their survival instinct and commit suicide, right? Well take the example of a masochist, who feels pleasure solely through the pain he causes himself or others cause him. Is he immoral for being this way? Of course not; he's only acting out of what he sees as his own self interest. Normal people may find it repugnant, but morality isn't a question of what most people find moral. If an atheist anarchist looked at the world, he might judge the following: I am going to die regardless of what I do; the species is going to die regardless of what I do; therefore I have no pressing reason to behave in a logical or pleasant way towards people.

 

You can hate this view. You can try to destroy those who have this view. You can protect yourself from people who hold this view. But you cannot rationally discredit this view, which is the point. Rational self interest isn't determined as much by rationality as what you deem to be in your best interest. We may call this masochist/serial killers/rapists/fire starters insane, but in their own minds their world is right side up, not upside down.

 

You're totally twisting the definition of morality to mean anything that a human wants to do, he can do. When in fact it morality is anything that will further their life. That means acting in a way that reflects their rational self-interest. Obviously suicide, masochism and those who wish to inflict harm on others are not moral because they do not further anyone's life, they take from it.

 

Also, why would an atheist anarchist think how you describe? That makes absolutely zero sense.

[Husker_x]

A really rational being would know there are ways to harm others without suffering any consequences at all. Also, you've ignored my point about a being who doesn't take his self-interest to heart. You do know that human beings can override their survival instinct and commit suicide, right? Well take the example of a masochist, who feels pleasure solely through the pain he causes himself or others cause him. Is he immoral for being this way? Of course not; he's only acting out of what he sees as his own self interest. Normal people may find it repugnant, but morality isn't a question of what most people find moral. If an atheist anarchist looked at the world, he might judge the following: I am going to die regardless of what I do; the species is going to die regardless of what I do; therefore I have no pressing reason to behave in a logical or pleasant way towards people.

 

You can hate this view. You can try to destroy those who have this view. You can protect yourself from people who hold this view. But you cannot rationally discredit this view, which is the point. Rational self interest isn't determined as much by rationality as what you deem to be in your best interest. We may call this masochist/serial killers/rapists/fire starters insane, but in their own minds their world is right side up, not upside down.

 

You're totally twisting the definition of morality to mean anything that a human wants to do, he can do. When in fact it morality is anything that will further their life. That means acting in a way that reflects their rational self-interest. Obviously suicide, masochism and those who wish to inflict harm on others are not moral because they do not further anyone's life, they take from it.

 

Also, why would an atheist anarchist think how you describe? That makes absolutely zero sense.

 

Again, completely incorrect. Morality has no inherent function to perform. It's the human discussion of what is right and what is wrong. Your personal definition encompasses that action which furthers life. It does not follow that your definition is necessary or shared, and to say so is begging the question. There are many actions that result in death or harm that we would consider moral––self defense, for instance, or lying to spare someone's feelings. Someone in the world might take the moral stance that he must destroy life itself by annihilating the planet. We may disagree with him, fight with him, even kill him. But in a war of thoughts, it really only burns down to our definition of morality versus his. His morality is destruction, ours is preservation. We have no standard we're comparing our respective systems to, therefore it is a matter of choice, opinion, what have you.

 

To your second question, it's again very simple. Pretend I'm an atheist rationalist thinker. I have two facts in front of me.

 

Fact #1: I am going to die.

 

Fact #2: This universe and everything in it is going to end. It is inevitable.

 

What I have now is a decision to make as an atheist anarchist. What choices do I make based off these undisputed facts? Do I try to make the time I have on earth a better one for everyone, or do I throw the dice and indulge every appetite I have––whether it's for sex, drugs, violence, etc. Either choice is possible, and neither really make a bit of difference in the end. Either way life is a lot like some scribblings on a chalk board. Sooner or later it's all going to be erased just like it never happened. It must be said, however, that an atheist anarchist must not necessarily choose to be a practical nihilist, but it's certainly an equal option.

[knapplc]

I read through a lot of this thread (then started doing some skimming - sorry) but I came away impressed with two things:

 

1) You guys are smart and you have good foundations in philosophy. And you understand humans. Those are rare qualities these days.

 

2) Despite your obvious differences in what can be a heated subject, this has been a civil discourse. I don't know that I've ever seen faith/agnosticism/atheism discussed so genially.

[blinky]

Real question - Are there atheists who are atheist because they were so fed up with "religious types" and zealots? Many people are members of certain religions based on family tradition. Is that the case with atheists?

[Husker_x]

Real question - Are there atheists who are atheist because they were so fed up with "religious types" and zealots? Many people are members of certain religions based on family tradition. Is that the case with atheists?

 

As with anything, it depends on the person. Since atheists are a very small minority in this country, you're likelier to run across atheists who deconverted from some other religion, although it's not impossible to find atheists with atheist parents. Truly we all start out as atheists and either by conversion or childhood indoctrination come at some point to accept the premises of a religion on our own. Tradition heavily factors into which religion you wind up with.

 

I've never seen or met an atheist who wasn't troubled on some level by radicals in various religions. This could also be a factor in their lack of belief, but it seems to me that this alone would be a pretty shoddy reason for rejecting the idea of God out of hand. You could just as easily find radical atheists committing acts of violence or hate. In neither case do you have enough weight to hold up or dismiss the claim.