Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[hector13]

You mean things are only "evil" if they result in a physical change to the universe, or other people? That's sort of a... functional definition, not an existential definition.

It also means you shouldn't really call things good or evil - only harmful or benign, and to go further, as "personally harmful/benign" vs "publicly harmful/benign."

That's a difference between atheistic and theistic morality though... one is that there is an existential, fundamental "good/evil", the other is that everything is just pragmatic.

I don’t think that’s the difference between atheistic and theistic morality. Theistic morality preaches that there is evil in thought (which means you might as well just do the act if it’s the same) but also that there’s evil in things that we consider benign in modern times, homosexuality being one of the big ones.

Some religions also think that removing evil is a good thing. They try “convince” the gay to be straight, through means from relatively benign (pray the gay away) to utterly cruel (conversion therapies, correctional rape, outright murder) because performing a smaller evil to prevent a greater one/save a soul is worth the sin.

[Strongpoint]

I don’t think that’s the difference between atheistic and theistic morality. Theistic morality preaches that there is evil in thought (which means you might as well just do the act if it’s the same) but also that there’s evil in things that we consider benign in modern times, homosexuality being one of the big ones.

Before someone jumps in with - not all theist considers homosexuality a sin. We know.

Only the most narrow-minded of theists go like "What is moral or not determined by what is written in my holy text and if I have reasons to think differently I should  remind myself that I am a child and can't possibly understand father's laws, I must obey them."

Most theists balance societal morality with their holy texts with ideas like "It didn't exactly mean that!" "It is outdated and applied only for that time." "It is an allegory" "Later part of the holy text cancels this!"

[Rolan7]

Yeah.  If Christians directly followed their scriptures without passing everything through a heavy cultural lens, there'd be a lot less war.  Probably more patriarchy, but people could get abortions in peace again.

The homophobia could go either way depending on whether they act like Paul was divinely inspired or just a zealous prick who knew Jesus heard about Jesus and appointed himself an authority.

[McTraveller]

Huh? Letting people continue to act like crazed beasts is not at all a rational conclusion to make from "there's no moral aspect to people who are neurologically beasts."  You still have to have social consequences - you don't just let people do whatever they want.

Same for the (even scriptural) basis against "oh if there's no moral difference between thinking about thing and doing it, then I'll just do it" - there's a difference in actual outcomes, but there is no moral difference - that's what's missing in that assessment.

As for why I don't ask "is this moral or not?" is because I already have the answer: If it's self-first, it's immoral. If it doesn't help people in need, when I have the ability to - it's immoral. If it's thinking that humans know best - it's probably immoral, but might just be misguided.  If it's hating people, that's immoral.

Incidentally I'd argue that it's because people read scriptures without passing them through a cultural lens that we have many problems. Lack of understanding what was cultural, versus what was "for all time", is indeed a huge problem.

Also funny that the Christian texts at least, explicitly say that nothing from the OT is cancelled, not one jot or tittle. (I think that "updating" older guidance is from Islam?)

Random: I think people also often confuse merely "unwise" for "immoral."  They are different concepts.

[dragdeler]

It's funny, we seem to have the same words levitating in suspension, while we speak about one thing, eventhough we think radically different:unwise/wise?! I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT 


I do not believe there'd be the chance of a snowball in hell, that altruistic concerns are able to solve the oncoming mass extinction. Only a wise self-interest could. But also I notice how most of the conversation turns around abvious criminality while my responses ooze in the subtext of declarations of collective guilt as it relates to the ecology.

[Strongpoint]

As for why I don't ask "is this moral or not?" is because I already have the answer: If it's self-first, it's immoral. If it doesn't help people in need, when I have the ability to - it's immoral. If it's thinking that humans know best - it's probably immoral, but might just be misguided.  If it's hating people, that's immoral.

Wow... How comfortable and simple...

Is it immoral to kill in self-defense? (it is self-first BY DEFINITION)
Is it immoral to hatelessly kill heretics so they don't spread their lies and hurt other people's immortal souls?
Is it immoral to torture people with an attempt to save their immortal soul? After all, it is better than hell.
Is it immoral to have any leisure at all when you could help other people instead?
Is it immoral to cause extinctions of animal species? (as long as you do it not for "self-first")

[McTraveller]

Yes. All those are immoral. Why make it difficult?

You can justify killing in self defense, but that doesn't make it moral.

The only subtle one is probably the leisure time one. There's a point where if you over-stress yourself, you reduce your ability to server others, so that can be immoral.

I mean of course I used reductio-ad-absurdum to show that for most things the argument is silly and is probably just trying to self-justify behavior or internal monologue or justify criticizing other peoples' thoughts and/or behaviors.

Some things are... blurry perhaps, but in that case, just err on the non-blurry definition.

[Strongpoint]

Well, I asked a yes or no question, I got a yes or no answer. My bad.

I actually want to know what makes those actions (im)moral from your theistic worldview.

I can answer my own questions.

Is it immoral to kill in self-defense? - Depends. Usually no. If you are a normal person, your life is more valuable for society than that of a wanna-be murderer. Also, it is good when violent people know that there is a risk of dying as a result of their violence, they will be less prone to practice that violence and this also benefits society.

Is it immoral to hatelessly kill heretics so they don't spread their lies and hurt other people's immortal souls? In most cases, yes. Even if you replace souls with minds. There are usually better ways. But sometimes there are no better ways. Killing members of ISIS or similar fanatical religious groups is good, if there are no other ways to stop them.

Is it immoral to torture people in an attempt to save their immortal soul? Yes. Torture doesn't work as mental therapy. Even if it did, the amount of suffering will likely outweight any gain

Is it immoral to have any leisure at all when you could help other people instead? Not really. Having fun that causes no harm can't be immoral by itself. but there is an "opportunity cost" of not doing something MORE moral. The problem is that this "opportunity cost" can be applied to anything "How dare you to save kittens when there are people starving in Africa? MONSTER!"  Of course, inaction can be immoral but it is unrealistic to expect that every human being will always act in a completely selfless way seeking what is the absolute best way to improve society. It is not how we function.

Is it immoral to cause extinctions of animal species? Very, very tricky one. For me it is yes but I am fully aware that view on the idea if morality spreads to animals (and to what degree) varies greatly. Even from the point of human-centric morality it looks immoral because we as humanity lose access to those species.

[Schmaven]

The morality of thoughts could be elaborated on a bit:

Thoughts precede both verbal and physical actions, and so thoughts are a nonphysical aspect of those actions. 
Whenever I start a new habit, or stop an old habit, I fantasize about my words or deeds in the manner of whatever change I am trying to accomplish.  After some thinking, I eventually see opportunities to act in new ways.  And by leaning into that direction with the choices I make, I can affect real changes in patterns of being.  Maybe my brain is wired differently from everyone else, but for me, thinking about certain actions makes it easier to engage in those actions. 

Now this doesn't just apply to intended changes in behavior.  I have also experienced how fantasizing about the pleasures of eating ice cream can lead to eating more ice cream than is healthy to consume.  Or how ruminating on how mad I'll be if so and so does that thing again can lead to an angrier than normal response to some stupid problem.

I extrapolate that in a similar way, fantasizing (in essence, thinking) about committing a particular crime would make someone more succeptible to actually engaging in that criminal action.  And that if the situation were to present itself it would require greater restraint to hold back than if such fantasies were not induldged.

While the thoughts themselves alone cause no harm, because they have the effect of pulling one in the direction of nonvirtue, they are inseparable from that chain of cause and effect that brings about variously moral and immoral actions.

So I categorize thoughts as having degrees of morality similar to how actions do.  But I am not a mind reader, and have trouble understanding exactly what people mean when they speak, so I do my best to always avoid judging the morality of others, but instead try to consider my own, and act accordingly.

[MaxTheFox]

Yes, but we are talking about if having pedophilic desires is evil, don't we? I chose the example of an act that is so clearly evil exactly because I want to illustrate that thoughts even about something as horrible as this... are not evil themselves.

Well, I think they fundamentally are. Even if they're not as horrible as the act.

Me when the fundamental difference in moral foundations. My moral system is not like a simple, clean mathematical formula. It's more like a complicated rulebook for a game. Not everything needs to be elegant and have a simple answer.

[Strongpoint]

Yes, but we are talking about if having pedophilic desires is evil, don't we? I chose the example of an act that is so clearly evil exactly because I want to illustrate that thoughts even about something as horrible as this... are not evil themselves.

Well, I think they fundamentally are. Even if they're not as horrible as the act.

Me when the fundamental difference in moral foundations. My moral system is not like a simple, clean mathematical formula. It's more like a complicated rulebook for a game. Not everything needs to be elegant and have a simple answer.

1) Your think has no why, no doubt, and no method to possibly check if what you think is true. So it is more like believe aka assert something as true when you don't know that.

2) Morality is anything but simple and elegant. Like most examples of emergent complexity, it is messy, blurry, and extremely hard to figure out - especially in corner cases.  And that's before we consider that there are no MORALITY, there are moralities. We may speak about personal morality or "universal human one" but even those are vague.

3) Having a rulebook IS an easy and simple way to look at reality.

[lemon10]

Questions mostly for the theists here:
1) Do you believe in objective morality?
2) If yes, do you believe it comes from God?
3) If again yes, do you think that things are only good/evil because that is what God has ordained/thinks?

Re: Morality and intent.
Personally I think intent matters a great deal for if an action is moral or not.
And yes, someone that beats his wife because he believes it would make her a better person would be more moral and less evil then one that does it because its fun or because he hates her. (I also think they would be wrong and deluded, but that's a different thing from being evil).

[MaxTheFox]

Yes, but we are talking about if having pedophilic desires is evil, don't we? I chose the example of an act that is so clearly evil exactly because I want to illustrate that thoughts even about something as horrible as this... are not evil themselves.

Well, I think they fundamentally are. Even if they're not as horrible as the act.

Me when the fundamental difference in moral foundations. My moral system is not like a simple, clean mathematical formula. It's more like a complicated rulebook for a game. Not everything needs to be elegant and have a simple answer.

1) Your think has no why, no doubt, and no method to possibly check if what you think is true. So it is more like believe aka assert something as true when you don't know that.

2) Morality is anything but simple and elegant. Like most examples of emergent complexity, it is messy, blurry, and extremely hard to figure out - especially in corner cases.  And that's before we consider that there are no MORALITY, there are moralities. We may speak about personal morality or "universal human one" but even those are vague.

3) Having a rulebook IS an easy and simple way to look at reality.

Honestly, yes to all three. My morality is indeed a belief. And I'm content with that. Objectivity is desirable in STEM[1] and in law. Applying it to philosophy is a fool's errand that only results in arguments that go nowhere at best, and LessWrong-style insanity at worst. Speaking of the law, this conflict between the subjective and the objective is why many laws are unjust. Alas, we can only approach total justice. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Questions mostly for the theists here:
1) Do you believe in objective morality?
2) If yes, do you believe it comes from God?
3) If again yes, do you think that things are only good/evil because that is what God has ordained/thinks?

1) It's complicated? I think it's partially subjective and partially objective. I don't think someone is immoral for having somewhat different values from me. I don't think Strongpoint and McTraveller are evil in any meaningful way, even though I disagree with both of them. But if someone's values are so different as to e.g make them a fascist, or a murderer, their subjective morality is evil.
2) This is a hard question to answer. My particular morality, and some others I think are within tolerances, do at least partially come from God. But an atheist can be moral, and a Christian can be immoral. It's up to the individual to make themself not suck.
3) Nah.
[1] And even in most STEM fields there is no absolute "proof". The joke goes, proof is for mathematicians and brewers.

[McTraveller]

To better understand the question - by objective morality do you mean morals that exist independently of human sentiment, morals that are merely constant over time, or both?

[Strongpoint]

1) It's complicated? I think it's partially subjective and partially objective. I don't think someone is immoral for having somewhat different values from me. I don't think Strongpoint and McTraveller are evil in any meaningful way, even though I disagree with both of them. But if someone's values are so different as to e.g make them a fascist, or a murderer, their subjective morality is evil.
2) This is a hard question to answer. My particular morality, and some others I think are within tolerances, do at least partially come from God. But an atheist can be moral, and a Christian can be immoral. It's up to the individual to make themself not suck.
3) Nah.

1) In other words you do believe in objective morality which is the part of overall morality, right?
2) It doesn't answer the question. Is that objective part of morality created by god? mandated by God? Is it part of the universe that somehow exists independently of God?
3) So... Does it mean that God's requests and desires may be objectively immoral?