How to be good without god.

[artisticsolution]

AS
Just to clarify, the Christian friend I spoke about - it wasn't you.
And I think I've said all I want to on this particular subject.
Where are we again ?
'Ethical theory'...
Hmmm...
Cozy natterings

Well, you didn't say it...but I think it applied to me, at least in my own mind, as sometimes I can just blurt out something without thinking...lol...remember I told you once I come from a long line of 'blurters'.

[marjoram_blues]

AS
Just to clarify, the Christian friend I spoke about - it wasn't you.
And I think I've said all I want to on this particular subject.
Where are we again ?
'Ethical theory'...
Hmmm...
Cozy natterings

Well, you didn't say it...but I think it applied to me, at least in my own mind, as sometimes I can just blurt out something without thinking...lol...remember I told you once I come from a long line of 'blurters'.

I'm past caring

[artisticsolution]

I'm past caring

Good! Finally! Cause I don't want you to 'CARE'....I want you to do this (the link below) with me...in this philosophy forum!

https://philosophynow.org/issues/71/Wel ... ophy_Class

[marjoram_blues]

I'm past caring

Good! Finally! Cause I don't want you to 'CARE'....I want you to do this (the link below) with me...in this philosophy forum!

https://philosophynow.org/issues/71/Wel ... ophy_Class

I would have to care enough.
And right now I can't even be bothered to click the link.

[artisticsolution]

This is from artisticsolution's thread, you know the one. It just seems a bit tidier here. For the moment.

There are, in fact, only four traditions in which there is a positive version of the Golden Rule...

This is not true. The Wikipedia article I referred to gives examples and sources:

"Zi Gong asked, saying, "Is there one word that may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not reciprocity such a word?" – Confucius
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." – Laozi
An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you."
In Mahābhārata, the ancient epic of India..."treat others as you treat yourself."

Well, I think what IC means is that even if there are a ton of versions of the golden rule out there....that it was Adam and Eve who would have been the ones to hand down that traditional thought. So, ipso facto, it still would have been God doling out the morality.

But I like the way you are presenting your argument, uwot...with the facts. So, my question to IC, which is still in keeping with the topic of this thread, is, if there is an objective morality, as he believes, then how is it possible for morality to have changed so drastically from the time of Adam and Eve...meaning from the time it was moral to have sex with your siblings to todays' world, where it is considered immoral? If Christians can change their morality with the times, doesn't that tell you that morality is a man made affect, and not a God made one? As if it was a God made objective one, then Christianity, would not be in keeping with God's law any more that atheism, as Christians change their morality with the times.

Duty has little or no role in ethics.

This is incorrect. "Duty," in ethical-speak, simply means "moral obligation," or "oughtness." If a precept is nothing you "ought" to do -- that is, if it comes with no duty to obey it, then it's not in any sense an ethical or moral directive. If we only had to do what we feel like doing, never what we don't feel like doing but ought to do, that is, have a duty to do in spite of our feelings, we would need no ethics at all.
That's basic to the field.

So, tell me, IC, how can you think an atheist can be moral, at all? If moral obligation is the only reason to be moral? Could it be that is only in YOUR head, and not what is in everyone else's head? If someone has been raised in a shelter of no knowledge of God whatsoever, how can you account for your assumption that this person would be immoral? Perhaps, they would still be moral, because that is what comes natural to some humans...Just as being right or left handed comes natural to some and not others?

Sorry uwot, if I have inadvertently hijacked your thread. I am trying to come from the opposite argument I was making in the other thread...lol.

I promise I'll get better!

[Obvious Leo]

To be honest, I don't think the god hypothesis is any more ridiculous than all the others that aim to explain how or why there is a universe.

I absolutely agree. The god hypothesis is certainly neither more nor less plausible than the physics hypothesis, which is nothing more than a more complicated variation on the same theme. Both assume a universe with a causal agent external to itself which makes both hypotheses both tautologous and circular by assuming that which they seek to establish. Consequently they make an equal amount of sense. NONE.

[artisticsolution]

To be honest, I don't think the god hypothesis is any more ridiculous than all the others that aim to explain how or why there is a universe.

I absolutely agree. The god hypothesis is certainly neither more nor less plausible than the physics hypothesis, which is nothing more than a more complicated variation on the same theme. Both assume a universe with a causal agent external to itself which makes both hypotheses both tautologous and circular by assuming that which they seek to establish. Consequently they make an equal amount of sense. NONE.

Except for science keeps asking questions ...searching for answers, whereas Christianity does not, as they believe they already found the asnswer.

[Obvious Leo]

Except for science keeps asking questions ...searching for answers,

If only it were so, AS, if only it were so. As a philosopher of physics it is my sad duty to inform you that it is NOT so. Science only seeks answers to questions which arise within its own defined narrative and a change in the underlying narrative almost NEVER occurs. Physics remains inescapably an Intelligent Design narrative and will never free itself from its own straitjacket until it accepts the fact that the universe was NOT created.

[artisticsolution]

Except for science keeps asking questions ...searching for answers,

If only it were so, AS, if only it were so. As a philosopher of physics it is my sad duty to inform you that it is NOT so. Science only seeks answers to questions which arise within its own defined narrative and a change in the underlying narrative almost NEVER occurs. Physics remains inescapably an Intelligent Design narrative and will never free itself from its own straitjacket until it accepts the fact that the universe was NOT created.

Ooh...cool idea Leo! So, you think the universe always has been or never was? If it is always has been, then isn't that the same thing as God who is the alpha and the Omega? And...if it never was...then we are thinking of the universe in a faulty way...as in we are something we don't even understand like a brain in a vat only more intangible... or should I say more inconceivable?

[Obvious Leo]

We're venturing way off topic, AS, but on a question such as this we have only two options. Either the universe has always existed or it hasn't. If it's always existed then we would say that god is unnecessary and if it hasn't always existed then we're really fucked because then we've defined our universe as unknowable. All the scientists and philosophers may as well pack up their crap and go fishing.

[Hobbes' Choice]

As the bible itself says: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12
No list of laws can cover every conceivable moral situation, therefore morality is subject to an individual's discretion in some instances, at the very least. In other words: artisticsolution is right and Immanuel Can is wrong. (Consequentialism craps on deontology, if you want to get technical.)

How to be good without god?

I just wake up in the morning.

[Skip]

We're venturing way off topic, AS, but on a question such as this we have only two options. Either the universe has always existed or it hasn't. If it's always existed then we would say that god is unnecessary and if it hasn't always existed then we're really fucked because then we've defined our universe as unknowable. All the scientists and philosophers may as well pack up their crap and go fishing.

What have the fish ever done to them?

Neither of those two creation stories - along with the hundreds of other creation stories - has anything to do with morality. The questions they're supposed to answer: What is the world (latterly universe)? Where did it come from? Is it one or many? Why is it here not over there? are the unnecessary questions of leisured minds. Both philosophers and physicists (not other kinds of scientists, as a rule) come to fish in this mental pond when they grow weary or incompetent of the practical questions which are their real stock in trade, which do have a purpose, and which keep them - scientists and philosophers - separate and distinct, each working his own patch.

Real and purposeful questions for scientists are like: How fast is this? How old is that? What's this made of? How long can that stay afloat? How many of these can we grow on that much land? When this thing stops being useful, can it be remade into some other useful thing? Those are the questions of living in the world.
Big Bangs and baby strings are not relevant to living - they're just for the entertainment of the nerdly fringe - and mostly harmless.

Real and purposeful questions for philosophers would be like: How do we balance fear of being hit with hope of being understood? Why are these people happier than those people? What kind of law can we enforce in a heterogeneous society? Is it possible to be empathic and aggressive and social? How should we behave to cause the fewest possible collisions? Those are the questions of living in the world.
Gods and demons are not relevant to living - they're just alter-egos for the a power-elite - and extremely harmful.

[artisticsolution]

As the bible itself says: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12
No list of laws can cover every conceivable moral situation, therefore morality is subject to an individual's discretion in some instances, at the very least. In other words: artisticsolution is right and Immanuel Can is wrong. (Consequentialism craps on deontology, if you want to get technical.)

How to be good without god?

I just wake up in the morning.

I do too. But how do we know if we are really 'good', besides 'we just know'. What does it mean 'to be good?'

Is being 'good' simply a matter of obeying the law...Or is it more about being accountable to ourselves...or is it about being accountable to others?

If there was no such thing as law, do you think the majority of people who obey the law now, would go out and commit crime? Would they steal for example?

Maybe they would not steal if they liked the person...but...

How many of us would consider it okay to take someone's money we did not like? For example, Donald Trump? The law protects him now...but would he be a pauper, if not for the law?

I know we can only speak for ourselves...but what we think others would do, says a lot about our morality too...maybe?

[artisticsolution]

We're venturing way off topic, AS, but on a question such as this we have only two options. Either the universe has always existed or it hasn't. If it's always existed then we would say that god is unnecessary and if it hasn't always existed then we're really fucked because then we've defined our universe as unknowable. All the scientists and philosophers may as well pack up their crap and go fishing.

What have the fish ever done to them?

Neither of those two creation stories - along with the hundreds of other creation stories - has anything to do with morality. The questions they're supposed to answer: What is the world (latterly universe)? Where did it come from? Is it one or many? Why is it here not over there? are the unnecessary questions of leisured minds. Both philosophers and physicists (not other kinds of scientists, as a rule) come to fish in this mental pond when they grow weary or incompetent of the practical questions which are their real stock in trade, which do have a purpose, and which keep them - scientists and philosophers - separate and distinct, each working his own patch.

Real and purposeful questions for scientists are like: How fast is this? How old is that? What's this made of? How long can that stay afloat? How many of these can we grow on that much land? When this thing stops being useful, can it be remade into some other useful thing? Those are the questions of living in the world.
Big Bangs and baby strings are not relevant to living - they're just for the entertainment of the nerdly fringe - and mostly harmless.

Real and purposeful questions for philosophers would be like: How do we balance fear of being hit with hope of being understood? Why are these people happier than those people? What kind of law can we enforce in a heterogeneous society? Is it possible to be empathic and aggressive and social? How should we behave to cause the fewest possible collisions? Those are the questions of living in the world.
Gods and demons are not relevant to living - they're just alter-egos for the a power-elite - and extremely harmful.

Hi Skip, These are great questions!

[uwot]

What is the world (latterly universe)? Where did it come from? Is it one or many? Why is it here not over there? are the unnecessary questions of leisured minds.

Maybe, but isn't all art, music, literature, ballet (particularly ballet) unnecessary?
Unnecessary questions have their uses. For one thing they are exercises, they challenge the mind and perhaps strengthens it. Doing away with them is a bit like telling a boxer to stop wasting time in the gym, get out and start hitting people.
The other purpose unnecessary questions serve is to provide a better understanding of our environment, the better to manipulate it. How we do that, and who benefits, then become practical questions.