| | Continued Moral Dialogue with TheSocraticClub
>> You wrote, “ You use terms like, reward and punishment, happiness and success. But tell me, who decides what is a reward? What is happiness really? How about success? On person might consider something a reward that another person considers a punishment.”
OK, I’ll take one thing at a time here.
First, if you remember, you initially tried to say that teachers are not constitutionally allowed to give students reasons or a basis for acting morally. I listed a few sample reasons/ bases for one example behavior. The first several that I listed are valid and already work and have worked for significant numbers of people. That alone invalidates your initial claim.
For many moral rules, there are good, logical, practical reasons to follow the rules, as well as emotional impetus, and the majority of people follow them the majority of the time. Rules that are not backed by reasons or biology should be discarded.
If/when there are students who do not accept those first reasons, reward/ punishment IS a valid, constitutional, and often effective reason for acting morally. That too already invalidates your initial claim. It is a fact that billions of people follow rules in order to reap rewards or avoid consequences. The hope is always that people will internalize morality by the time they are adults, but no one can force another to internalize morality.
--- --- --- ---
Now, you want to know about the person who rejects the sample rationale I offered.
There will always be people who reject others’ claims or reasons for acting a certain way, just like there will always be people who reject your unsubstantiated religious reasons for certain behaviors.
People who reject certain rules will still find out whether their actions lead to good consequences. If the consequences are good for all, then no harm is done. If results turn out negative, then either the individual will avoid such actions in the future, or else other people will ban together to stop such actions from negatively affecting themselves.
In the specific sample case of the school cheater, if he doesn’t like the reasons, he can cheat and face the consequences. No big deal. He won’t be able to do it consistently forever. There are still good reasons, even if he doesn’t accept them.
Doing one’s own work, or non-cheating, will always be the moral rule in education, because teachers/parents/administrators need to evaluate students’ progress. The education system will usually be designed so that no one can cheat forever anyway.
Sometimes people do “wrong” and DO seem to get away with it. That’s life. Maybe they regret it; maybe they don’t. You can’t police everyone all the time. Such cases will probably never be the majority; otherwise, the society a.) will change its rules, or b.) will suffer, or c.) will possibly even destroy itself.
---
---
>> You wrote, “But tell me, who decides what is a reward? What is happiness really? How about success? On person might consider something a reward that another person considers a punishment.”
Individuals decide, society decides, and nature/genetics/bio-chemistry decides. Don’t forget that we do belong to the same species. There are some basics that are practically universal.
Maslow’s hierarchy of HUMAN NEEDS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy is kind of old and could be tweaked, perhaps, but it is basically revealing and useful (even if some small aspects of the hierarchy are questioned) as a list of common elements of human happiness.
- Humans (along with other animals) have certain primitive, basic physiological needs: air, food, water, sleep, warmth, sex, bio-chemical bodily homeostasis.
- If these are met, there are safety concerns: security from crime/violence, security of food/resource supply (or, employment), health.
- If these are met, people need love and/or belonging: friendship, family, group, sexual intimacy.
- If these are met, people need esteem: self-esteem, confidence, achievement, respect of and by others.
- If deficiency needs are satisfied, then being and growth needs become
“enduring motivations or drivers of behavior.” These include
cognitive/intellectual needs, aesthetic needs, and self-actualization.
Maslow writes the following of self-actualizing people:
- They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.
- They are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.
- They are creative.
- They are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.
- They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
- They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority.
- They have discernment and are able to view all things in an objective manner.
Levels 1-4 are “deficiency needs” – the individual feels anxious or pained if they are not met.
Maslow’s hierarchy was/is a general proposition and does not imply that everyone's needs follow the same rigid pattern. For some people, one need seems to be a stronger motivation than another.
Rewards will most of the time be things that assist one in meeting such needs. And happiness, too, will most often be involved in meeting such needs. Divergences are small enough to be met on an individual basis. Individuals can decide for themselves what happiness means; even so, they will come to terms one way or another with the needs listed above.
For troublemakers, there is always prison/isolation for the protection of the group.
[nota bene: Body chemistry largely determines a person’s “default” happiness settings, when all other things are equal. According to S. Lyubomirsky, K. M. Sheldon, and D. Schkade, in "Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change" (2005, Review of General Psychology. 9 (2), pp. 111-131), looking for the level of subjective happiness as reported by people and comparing it to various elements in their lives reveal the following findings:
- About 50% of one's chronic happiness level depends on one's genes. This includes intrapersonal, temperamental, and affective personality traits, like extroversion, negative affectivity, arousability, etc. They are rooted in neurobiology, are highly heritable, and change little over time. Studies on children followed from 4 months to 11 years show that certain character traits involve distinct neurochemical profiles.
- 40% is a result of intentional activity – behavioral, physical, and cognitive. Effective examples tend to include regular exercise; being kind to people; setting, striving for, and achieving progress toward fitting personal goals; intentionally practicing positive mind-sets like forgiveness and gratitude; etc.
- 10% is a result of circumstances. This can include one’s location, age, gender, ethnicity, culture, economic or marital status, income, health, etc. Changes in circumstances can bring short-term pleasures or temporarily heightened happiness levels, but they are followed by a return to one’s chronic level.]
[nota bene: With basic morality, fortunately, there are many moral principles upon which most humans agree, regardless of religion or lack of religion. Also, psychologist Jonathan Haidt has found 5 morals spheres – harm-avoidance, fairness, community/group loyalty, authority, and purity – which are universal among humans. All five are rooted in biology and chemistry and are accounted for by evolution. How those five areas are balanced depends on culture. ]
-----
-----
>> You wrote, “One person might consider something a reward that another person considers a punishment.”
IF that does happen, so what? Maybe the person will eventually enjoy prison or isolation, and society will be fine.
-----
-----
>> You write, “Suppose one person might think that cheating on a test will bring him happiness while another person thinks that cheating on the test will bring unhappiness. Who is right?”
Are you asking “Who is right?” because you don’t know? Are you honestly unable to figure out that cheating as a rule will not work for society?
The consequences will determine who is right. I answered this question above: If he doesn’t like the reasons, including avoiding punishment, then he will cheat and face the consequences. No big deal. He won’t be able to do it consistently forever.
Also, it is a fact that there are still good reasons, even if he doesn’t accept them. And if he does it repeatedly, he will still not be as skilled as he would have been if he had done his own work. If he has to compete against people who really do have the skills he lacks, he will not be as successful, and lack of success does diminish happiness.
Sometimes it may actually be the case that small-scale, rare cheating due to extenuating circumstances may help a person get through a bind and even be happier for it. Such a case is no big deal really, and such a person knows it is not smart as a consistent habit. However, if he does get caught, it will rightly diminish his character, and he will not gain the approval he otherwise would.
Doing one’s own work, or non-cheating, will always be the moral rule in education, because teachers/parents/administrators need to evaluate students’ personal progress. The education system will usually be designed so that no one can cheat forever anyway.
Just for kicks, theoretically, IF chronic cheating brings some rare individual true, lasting happiness (which I doubt will happen), then it will be rare, and as long as no one else is harmed, wohoo! yippee for that person. He can cheat as long as it works for him and we don’t catch him. Everybody will be happy. As soon as someone IS harmed by it, the rest of us will ban together and stop the activity. If the individual himself is harmed or realizes he is not getting all he could, he himself will either stop or suffer. No problem.
It is still a fact that consistent cheating on important matters can never become the acceptable norm without detriment to society. People will either realize this or suffer.
People break rules all the time, even if they are Christians with so-called “absolute” moral standards. [You are not claiming to be perfect, are you?] Lots of people have to learn the hard way that many rules have good rationale behind them. If a rule has no good rationale, then it should be discarded. People who do learn by experience have all the more reason for behaving better, and they will in turn teach others. Many will listen; some will likewise learn the hard way. So be it.
Remember that even with Christianity, it will work the same way. Christianity, just like secular humanism, tries to give people reasons to act a certain way, but it does not force them to accept its reasons. Even in a Christian system people will break the rules, right?
Cheating is not always as dangerous as some moral faults. Take indiscriminate murder. Most people know that murder is bad for society; atheists do too. It is not hard for a thinking person to figure out. Since you seem to be interested in those who refuse reasons or who gain happiness from acting against others, suppose someone murders indiscriminately because it makes him happy. If he is a psychopath, true, non-religious rationality wouldn’t work for him, but then neither would your faith-based religious claims. Still, if he murders, he will be removed from society by the rest of us, because our moral prohibition against murder is best for us as a group. If we know he is planning to murder, then we will stop him.
I know you really wish that atheists and others needed your god or your pretend absolutes in order to act according to morals and live well, but they don’t. Atheists may not have all the same moral beliefs as you do, but that doesn't keep them from having effective morals compatible with American life, and Christians don’t all have the exact same moral beliefs either.
----- -----
-----
>> You wrote, “1. If both of them are right then values are relative and there is still no foundation for morality.”
This statement is a conflation of ideas.
First, both of them are not “right” in any absolute, objective sense.
Second, the relativity of values is no hindrance to basic morality, because there are core values that most of humanity shares. Also, the fact that some tribe in Africa may have some different morals than we do does not stop us from creating our own workable moral system here. When an individual rejects a critical value, he is removed from the group or made to change. The foundations of morality are found in biology and the natural, practical needs of individuals and groups for some degree of harmony and cooperation in order to flourish.
Groups may share some basic morals but differ in less important/consequential morals. This is no problem either. Not all groups have to be the same in every way in order to thrive.
So what if Johnny disagrees with us on some issue and thinks x is the “right” thing to do? Big deal. His opinion is only “right” in his own mind; that does not make it “Right” in any absolute way, and if it harms the rest of us or goes against the rational rules of our society, then we will stop him. That is all that is needed. If he doesn’t harm us, and even if persuades us that he has a better way, then that works too, and we may all be better for it.
Even Christians are acknowledging moral relativity when they admit that they are not bound to follow the “Law of Moses.” Even Christianity teaches that Yahweh gave the Jews certain morals that he did not give to the rest of the planet and that he does not expect Christians to follow.
-----
----- -----
>> You wrote, “2. If one is right, how do we know that? There has to be an absolute Standard to determine that. Hence, God.”
How do we know that cheating on school work is generally harmful, problematic, and/or limiting for people?!? Are you being serious?
Not only is it logical, but experience has proven it. Exceptions are isolated, not chronic, and specific to certain circumstances. That’s right, people are capable of learning from experience and reason without reading a so-called holy book or pretending to consult a god who never appears or answers.
Your idea of an “absolute standard” and “God” is unnecessary, imaginary, and flawed. All you “know,” or (more correctly) profess to believe about your “God” is what you read from human books or hear from humans. It is pretend. Any real experiences you can have of real God are the same kind of experiences we all can have, and such experiences are not “outside of nature,” but part of nature. Your traditional Christian god, the one I too once believed in, cannot serve as a standard for determining my behavior because he does not answer if I ask him what I should do, and the book people use in order to learn about your god is full of demonstrated mistakes, scientific faults, historical errors, inconsistencies, and other problems. If some people do not know this, it is because they limit themselves to Christian sources instead of thoroughly, analytically, carefully reading the whole Bible itself, history, and the good, documented research that is available to anyone willing and able to read it. http://www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity/ (my page, for starters)
I give Christians links, but I don’t think they read them. Why? I don’t know. Maybe they are not psychologically ready to face it. I love them/you anyway, even if they and I are both arrogant at times.
If your “absolute standard” exists, I want to know it. If you think you can, give me reasons to believe you are talking about a real god; show me that the Bible is reliable and that the problems listed on my web page are not real.
If you think you know how to save my soul and you don’t try, what kind of Christian are you? Do you have a moral obligation to love me and help me if you are able?
----- ----- -----
>> You wrote, “Firstly, what is with the random assertion in the middle of your argument that the Old Testament is more mythology than history? Not only is it out of place, it’s arrogant. How do you know that my friend?”
I know because I have studied the Bible from both a Christian (I was one) AND a non-Christian perspective, as well as mythology, history, ancient languages, and a sufficient amount of science.
I have posted SOME of my findings here: http://www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity/ (my page. I keep hoping you will read it. Can you tell?)
I am glad you called me friend. I like that, and I hope it remains so, my friend.
-----
>> You wrote, “Thirdly, an objection to God’s morality is silly, especially by you. You don’t believe in absolute morality, so how can you reject Christianity because you think Yahweh is immoral? It isn’t consistent.”
That’s not the only reason I rejected orthodox Christianity. Also, please quit pretending that imaginary “absolute” morality is the only conceivable kind of morality.
Yahweh is a character in literature. I find his behavior in literature offensive, primitive, excessive, and I am glad that he is not real. I’m glad I no longer have to pretend or try to convince myself that his actions in the Bible are all good or that he is loving. The “loving,” “compassionate” part is the worst joke of all. If he existed and were as loving as a real father, my human dad for example, then he would not hide from me (and you), he would help me, and he would not punish people for not believing a story which bears the marks of myth, error/fraud, and human authorship and cannot be verified.
---------
>> You wrote, “Also because Yahweh is the ideal of Goodness and cannot tolerate evil He is justified in destroying evil. Men are evil. Does the Creator do wrong when he destroys his creation? The painter does not do wrong when he destroys the painting he created?”
Yahweh is not my ideal of goodness, and my loved ones are more than mere paintings. I don’t think it is the "ideal of Goodness"
- to hide from people you love,
- to demand blood sacrifice (of an innocent animal or human) in order to calm down or forgive someone [anger-management problem. primitive. No modern educated American honestly, deep down, really thinks this type of action is just.],
- to create some people lame, diseased, retarded, psychopathic,
- to punish people just because they don’t know you exist, or don’t believe an old story with inconsistent and hard-to-believe details and some details contradicted by natural physical evidence – a story passed down by superstitious humans in an unscientific age and maintained by faulty human institutions,
- to put new-born people who don’t know right from wrong or good from bad in a garden and then punish them if they get persuaded by a persuasive creature placed in the same garden, and all because you are afraid they will become “as one of us,”
- never to speak for yourself so that your loved ones can hear your voice.
I could list many more, but these are enough.
--------------
>> You wrote, “Once more you use terms like survival, love and happiness. But why are these qualities desirable? Why should they be? Without an absolute Standard these questions are unanswerable.”
omg! ; ) Why? Because I am. ;) I DO desire survival, love, and happiness, and even truth (!) and I have been enjoying at least the first three and at least in certain ways the last. I want to desire them. It feels good, at least for now. Why? Because it is my nature. I am this way.
If anyone does not want to survive, love, or be happy, then he or she or it is hopefully free to exit the stage, right? My best wishes for all.
Do you want to exist? Does the universe/God/nature/This want to exist? Did the universe/God/nature/This choose to exist?
;;God did not choose to come into existence. This simply is.;;
-------------------------------------
>>You wrote, “What is well-being?”
My desire would be for you to consider at least
and then tell me what you think well-being is.
For most people, well-being involves meeting the human needs listed in Maslow’s hierarchy, and at least for me, it also includes seeking truth, understanding, love, and social and environmental harmony.
---------------
---------------
>> You wrote, “Perhaps one person considers death to be expedient towards his well-being. Another person considers murdering people to be expedient towards his well-being? Under your system they have to be right.”
You are SERIOUSLY misrepresenting me (which is wrong by the way, mister absolutist). ;) I never said they were right – only that they might think they are right, which is irrelevant.
Regarding self-chosen death: If someone wants to die, someone may choose to die. I do not believe you can continually force people to live if they do not wish it. One of my younger friends, Oskar, killed himself last year. (He did believe in God, in case you might wonder.) I would have tried to talk him into staying around here in his previous human form, but I do not dishonor him by trying to castigate him or by thinking he somehow sinned.
Regarding murderers, I think we as a society (Christians, atheists, pantheists, agnostics, and others all alike) do the best we can for ourselves when we forbid murder and severely punish those who do it. No, I do not think it is “right” to murder people. In order to say so, you must have completely misunderstood everything I have tried to say.
---------------------------
>> You wrote, “If well-being happiness, love, etc. are relative, they are not a foundation for morality at all. What one person considers moral is still different from what another person considers moral.”
Not true. You and I both believe that murdering innocent people is bad for society, even though we seem to believe it for different reasons and appear to have some different ideas about happiness, love, and wellbeing, and even though you seem to believe it is okay for a creator god to kill innocent human babies if he created them.
[You wrote, “Yahweh is the ideal of Goodness and cannot tolerate evil He is justified in destroying evil. Men are evil. Does the Creator do wrong when he destroys his creation? The painter does not do wrong when he destroys the painting he created?” ]
Despite well-being, happiness, etc. being “relative” and/or subjective, it is still a FACT that there are basic needs common to mankind, and that it is reasonable and beneficial for societies to have/develop morality and for individuals to act morally and cooperate with each other in order to thrive. It is a fact that better cooperation leads to better success and happiness, even though different individuals may have slightly unique versions of happiness. This is true with or without religion. It is also true that with or without religion, some individuals will deviate and incur punishment from the group.
-------------
>> You write, “Hard atheism claims to be rational, but it isn’t really. Atheists have no reason NOT to believe in God. There are arguments in favor of God’s existence, but there are none in favor of His nonexistence. … Theism has arguments in favor of it…atheism doesn’t.”
You only think this because you read or listen to what Christians say about atheism instead of reading and understanding atheists’ literature. You misrepresent atheists because you really do not understand what they think and you do not know their writings. That is irresponsible, and what you have said is a lie. If you should decide to read atheist literature, you will find that there are arguments for discontinuing to believe in the Christian God.
filow84 posted:
>> "Atheists have no reason NOT to believe in God."
How's this - We look at the world and see nothing that requires or indicates a supernatural interference or presence, so we don't believe in one. Crazy, huh? We study religious practices, myths, and rituals of previous societies and cultures and smile at their credulity all the while seeing their vestiges persisting to this day. After all, how different really is dancing to bring rain and praying for rain?
>> "There are arguments in favor of God’s existence..."
And all of them are surprisingly poor, weak, and empty, relying on what basically amounts to verbal slight of hand and the gullibility of and lack of scrutiny by the listener.
>> "..but there are none in favor of His nonexistence."
Look, you can't pull an imaginary entity out of your ass and say, "Can you show that it doesn't exist? No? Then it exists!" Well, you could, but who would find that convincing? Oh, right.
(Posted 1/18/2008 12:27 AM by filow84)
TheSocraticClub posted:
I'm not making that argument. However to disbelieve in God is intellectual arrogance since you cannot know that God does not exist. A true freethinker would admit that he does not know and not claim that they have knowledge of God's nonexistence.
Posted 1/18/2008 1:10 AM by TheSocraticClub
-----------
WindOnReed2 posted:
>> You just wrote, "However to disbelieve in God is intellectual arrogance since you cannot know that God does not exist. A true freethinker would admit that he does not know and not claim that they have knowledge of God's nonexistence."
Not necessarily true, SocraticClub. It depends on how "God" is defined.
IF one knows that the Bible tells false stories about God, then one knows that the God described in the Bible as a whole does not exist.
IF God is defined as omni-present, yet Christians say one can be separated from God, we know that both of those cannot be true: No omni-present god exists from whom sinners or evil can be separate, if sinners and evil also exist.
Also, do you live up to your own words here?
Do you disbelieve in Allah? or are you agnostic about Allah?
Do you disbelieve in Zeus? Or do you admit that you have no knowledge of Zeus's non-existence?
Are you an atheist regarding Roman gods, or an agnostic?
Are a "true freethinker," admitting that maybe God is meta-personal and the same as the universe/nature?
-----------------
TheSocraticClub posted:
---------------- WindOnReed2 posted: >>
You wrote, " Well I believe God does control and in a sense encompass
evil. Because He is eternal it doesn't matter. Evil is a tool to bring
about the greatest good." Posted 1/19/2008 2:44 AM I say WOW,
sweet. OK, as long as you also acknowledge that any "hell" that ever
exists must also be a part of this omni-present God, and that every
time someone does "evil," he is "bringing about the greatest good." But, what does this new admission on your part do for you basis for "absolute" morality? |
