So whats the plan when at the end of the week he has debt and he can't afford water and bread, do you let me starve to death/die of thirst?

Just tell him to work harder and if he dies i go out
and get another slave.

Than you would be guilty in the eyes of God. Thing is, its easy for me to say this because I believe in absolute morals.

Guilty of what? He owes for the food and water?
He cant steal remember?

What about this someone is attacking you
and he is hell bent in killing you. You defend
yourself through this act of self defence you kill him.
But if you hold the view that murder is wrong then you
cant defend yourself in fear you might murder him

You're all silly for not seeing that morality has roots in objective reality, without God as justification.

Empathy has roots as an evolutionary survival mechanism. Evolutionary biology has established these relationships quite clearly. Do you think a large civilization/species can survive if murder didn't illicit feelings of guilt, and a person's internal organs did not disquist us? Do you think that altruism, synergy and cooperation - all things which aid survival in evolution - are possible without feelings of empathy or what we label as 'love'?

The reason that a mother loves her child is because a human child has a large head/brain. Brains use up to ten times more energy than other organs in the body. This requires a genetic trade-off - due to energy constraints - meaning that energy used for muscle/strength, coordination, size developments common in most other species of life - which allow them to walk/run, and survive within 2/3 days of being born - are inaccessible to human children. This means that a human child (contrary to other species) requires the mother to take care of it, for at least 12 years - which is a very long time compared to all other species on earth - and evolutionary what this means is that, the mother must develop strong feelings towards the child, in order to keep them together long enough for the child to develop, and thus be able to survive in the wild, and spread his genes/keep the species alive. Additionally, the more that a species depends on learned behavior, the less able their young are to care for themselves, and the more time they need to learn from their parents. 'Love' is necessary to keep the mother and child together for long enough for the child to be able to survive. All emotion, empathy, hatred, good and bad, has roots in our evolutionary biology.

Even the reason the mother feels so much love towards the father is because this love is very necessary for the child's survival, as a mother on her own has less of a chance at helping the child survive until it develops. A father also needs to be present, to provide necessary resources for development. These strong protective feelings that the mother thus has towards her child, and the emotions that a father has towards a mother - we label 'love' or consider it some sort of mystical force - without looking at science and seeing that it's nothing but a survival mechanism - for a particular species of life. This also explains the enormous divorce rates between people - after the point at which their children become independent. The love between the mother and father is simply unnecessary beyond that point.

Fact of the matter is that evolution does whatever is necessary to keep the species alive. Other species on earth like horses - who are able to to walk and run on the first day of birth, and require little learning - do not have overprotective/loving mothers devoted to their child for 12 years... because the emotion of love is simply not necessary for that species to survive.

What this means objectively is that, by using science, we are able to objectively determine, which morals are good/bad and how these morals will help us either advance as a species or die out. Ultimately, those morals which aid survival, should always be preferred to those which do not. This is the best objective measure of morality, and scientifically speaking - the only one.

Thus to answer the question of: why be moral and perform moral deeds when you think that there is no God?

To help our species: (A) Survive and; (B) Thrive.

But you have not demonstrated that premise 1 is unsound.

If you claim that human empathy somehow gives us objective morality, you are going to have to explain how human empathy is in any way objective.

I find that is not going to be an easy argument to make, as on the face of it, the thing that you are claiming as your moral source is as subjective as it gets.

I keep looking in all of these very long posts you and veedz are making, but I can't find anything you can hang your hat on.

Would you say that the act of - eating food/drinking water - is objectively 'good' for us?

I think you would indeed say that - eating food/drinking water - is objectively 'good' for us, because without - eating food/drinking water - our species dies.

Now. Would you say that the act of - helping others (via empathy, compassion or whatever emotion) - is objectively 'good' for us?

If you say no, then what you are saying, is that the act of - helping others - does not facilitate our survival, but instead lowers our chance of survival. This is not true, thus making the act of - helping others - an objectively 'good' act.

This is the key point: It is an objectively 'good' act, not because you say it's so, or because others say it's so, but because nature/reality says it's so (we need to do it, to survive). Although one's morality may differ from another's - as a collective/as a species - our objective morality is always that which facilitates survival, for all morality stems from this very requirement.

Now if you're going to argue that there's no such thing as 'objective truth', and that evidence-based science functions under a metaphysical premise which cannot be validated, I'll be more than happy to go there too....

So your position is that objective morality is based upon survival? Gee there seems to be a lot of things we do that we deem morally good, or at least morally acceptable that don't facilitate survival.

Here's your human empathy at work:

Warning: The footage is ugly and horrifying.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...?ncid=webmail1

There it is. The godless society you want.

Those people in that video did not think it was true.
I can come up with a dozen situations off the top of my head where helping another is probably going to seriously shorten your lifespan.
In fact, probably most situations, according to "nature theory."

But still, "nature" does not provide objectivity.
This is all mental gymnastics and verbal contortions.
You have simply redefined objectivity, by tainting it, and then building an argument around this tainted definition.

If, say, you are placed in a situation where your two year old daughter is held captive by armed and murderous goons, and they are about to kill her, and if you "help" her, she will probably die anyway, as well as yourself, as you are unarmed, then under your definition of "objective morality," the best thing to do is let her be killed, and facilitate your survival.

But we know that nobody lets her go, in reality.

Empathy is shown between family members to ensure survival of that individual animals own genes. This empathy is not shown outside of the family unit as your genes directly have no stake in the outcome. This comes into question with humans as we have developed the intelligence to realise that in many cases being mutually supportive of others (civilised society) can infact be beneficial to our own selfish desire/need to survive and pass on our genes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

You're right, and I admitted as much earlier ITT based upon how I interpreted objective/subjective.

That being said, I still don't agree that God is necessary for something to always be wrong, especially the Christian God. If something is objectively wrong, then it's wrong for God. If it's not wrong for God, but is wrong for Humans, then it's subjectively wrong. God ordered the killing of infants in the OT, but that would be wrong for humans to do this, so infanticide is therefore subjectively wrong. In this case, premise 2 is unsound.

Do you think that unless a transcendent being like God says that "two plus two equals four," it is only subjectively true that 2+2=4?

Do you think that unless a transcendent being like
God says that "Tuna is better than steak and you
should eat tuna" it is only subjectively true....wait it
is only subjectively true.

The difference between that and math is that
there can only be 1 RIGHT answer to the question
what is 2+2? It has a set value, it can be measured.

But how do you measure a human life or happiness?

The problem is that you spent the money helping other people. You should have bank wired that flow direct to Jesus' Wells Fargo account. Then you go to heaven. hiya

WLC claims that we all agree that the Holocaust is objectively wrong, where by "objectively wrong" we mean that it was wrong regardless of whether people think it was wrong. Okay, I can agree with that (with some caveats), so in that sense I agree with WLC that some things are objectively wrong.

The next question seems to be: Why is the Holocaust wrong in this way? I would say that it is wrong in that way because killing and torturing people and taking away their basic rights of self-respect as human beings is wrong even if you don't think it is wrong. That is what makes the Holocaust immoral. If you want to generalize this some more, you can come up with a broader moral principle such as--it is wrong to treat other people as a means only, or you should seek to maximize the happiness of everyone, or you should follow the rules that would would be agreed on as a way of living together in relative peace and harmony, etc.

But what about those more general rules? Why should it be wrong to break them independently of what people think? Here we finally get to God. WLC claims that the only reason to follow them is because god told us to follow them. There are two ways we can challenge this claim. First, we can show that this is not an adequate answer either. For instance, we might ask--why should we do what god commands us to do?

Second, we can try to show how there are alternative answers. For instance, we can say that it is a fact about all, or nearly all, humans, that we would rather be happy than not. Then, we can say following the rules of morality will help you live a happier life. Similarly, we can say that rules of morality are ways of emotively motivating people to act in ways that solve various collective action problems. Or we can say that humans are such that in order to be a valuable or good human you have to act morally.

Presumably wickss would say that if God said this then it would be objectively true that tuna is better than steak, right? After all, his opinion seems to be that morality by its own nature is subjective, but since God has weighed in, God's view about morality is the objective truth.

My own view is that the objectivity or subjectivity of a claim is generally not dependent on God's statements and so I would say that God's views on the superiority of tuna over steak don't make it objectively true that tuna is better than steak.


Do you think that happiness is a real phenomenon? If so, do you think it can be measured? If the answer is yes, then there you go--one of the goals of morality can be measured. If not, then since something doesn't need to be measurable in order to be real, it seems like it also doesn't need to be measurable in order to be objective.

Also, I think there is only one right answer to this question asked by Hitler during WWII: "Should we kill all the Jews?"

The Nazi's didnt think it was wrong. And I am willing
to bet some hardcore Nazi's today still think that.

Yes happieness is a real thing. And yes maybe
It can be measured. But heres the thing
if someone finds killing murder and rape
all fun things to do and it makes them happy,
But what has that got to do with morals?

Also, I think there is only one right answer to this question asked by Hitler during WWII: "Should we kill all the Jews?"

Its just depends. What about Barack Obama killing Osama Bin Laden?

Blitz - Do you consider life to have any inherent meaning?

None what so-ever. Ask me in 1000 years again.

How about any non-inherent meaning or purpose?

Ahhhh, so the all-important free will only applies to the atheists. Good to know!

So if someone believed that standing out in the snow for three hours every night and praying to their snow god would cure their cancer, you wouldn't "risk" trying to talk them out of it? Or can you show with "absolute certainty" that no snow gods exist?

How delightful of god. Good to know his will is for 41,000 children to starve to death every day. Very nice.

We're referencing Old Testament law here, really? Please, tell me you actually follow and keep the entirety of this law, not just the parts you decide to whip out at random to defend biblical endorsements of slavery.

We're talking about justice. If you have done something for which you actually deserve to die, it is unjust for you to go free. It is unjust for someone to be allowed to take your place. It is even more immoral for you to allow them to, and certainly doesn't somehow make now undeserving of death.

I can't help but think that people must secretly believe they don't deserve eternal punishment or something. It's a much more romantic notion if you're unjustly convicted. Otherwise the whole thing is just... messed up.

THIS.

So if your children disobey you, you're just to kill them (that is biblical, actually)? It's not murder as long as you're "punishing" someone? Might doesn't make right. It's a bit disturbing that you guys keep trying to insist that it does.

Uh, they "exist" because we have made them? I don't think they're like a physical object you could find lying around?

If by "treated well" you mean only beaten badly enough to be bedridden for two days, instead of three? Then yes. It baffles me that you can insist that slavery "isn't something wrong," after going over the fact that they weren't paid and completely in someone else's power - usually for their entire lives. But that's "just the nature" of owning slaves? Ugh.

Congratulations on having no idea what you're talking about... as usual. http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments...ts_run/c2rwnzn

And only about 10% of Chinese are atheists, sooooo yeah. Swing and a miss.

That's biology and instinct at work, not god whispering in your ear.

What?