Philosophy Now Forum

artisticsolution wrote: But how do we know if we are really 'good', besides 'we just know'.

We had a long, dependent period of immaturity in which to learn this from our adult care-givers. Along with how to dress, where to find food, what noises to run away from, which universities have the best reputation with employers, what party to vote for.

What does it mean 'to be good?'

In the most practical terms: to earn the approval of one's tribe. To the extent that we have internalized the values of our tribe, and that those values correspond to our own animal well-being, goodness = serenity (no internal conflict).

Is being 'good' simply a matter of obeying the law...

To the extent the law as practiced corresponds to the stated values of the tribe. (This looks tricky, but is really simple.

eg 1. We state that honesty is a highly-rated virtue. We support a law that every productive citizen should contribute so much toward the tribe's mutual undertakings. When we cheat on our income tax, we know that the law is congruent with our stated values; our dishonesty is wrong and we feel like crap about it.
eg 2. Honesty is a virtue. Every productive citizen should contribute. And now we discover that the ruling elite are using our contribution for destructive purposes and lying about it. We know their dishonesty is wrong, and that makes us angry. We know their action is wrong, and that makes us angry. We are also afraid of them, so we don't express our anger. Instead we cheat on our income tax, withholding some of our contribution to the destructive activity. Of course, we still feel like crap, because we haven't defended honesty or stood up to wrong. But we have a handier justification to practice dishonesty. Thus our society slowly unravels.

Or is it more about being accountable to ourselves...or is it about being accountable to others?

If it's not both/and, your society is unravelling.

If there was no such thing as law,

That's unimaginable. Social species had laws long - many millions of years - before one of them came up with the concept of morality.

do you think the majority of people who obey the law now, would go out and commit crime?

"Crime" is a direct derivative of "law". It doesn't mean wrong action - it means forbidden action. Whether it's wrong depends on whether the law is right and obeyable. If the sheriff of Nottingham declares a new poll tax, and half the households in the village have no money to pay it, they're committing an unavoidable crime. If the Furer demands that every Jew be transported, and you hide your neighbour's baby, that's an avoidable crime but a right action.

Would they steal for example?

Depends on their need for the thing and who owns it. Medicine from a drugstore when your child is sick? Sure. Anonymous stranger's coat from the hanger in a restaurant when you're freezing? Maybe. Food from your equally poor neighbour? Probably not.

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?

There are so many discongruencies between DT's wealth and the concept of good social order that moral values hardly even fit anywhere in that equation. If you want law-abiding citizens, you should make value-based laws.

uwot wrote:

skip wrote: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.

So? I didn't say anyone should stop asking them. That was a response, not a gratuitous judgment. I said this isn't the real job of scientists and philosophers; it is the leisure-time activity that brings them together, but doesn't serve either of their practical functions.

Doing away with them is a bit like telling a boxer to stop wasting time in the gym, get out and start hitting people.

Not at all. The origin-of-universe question is not essential to the practice of science. It butters no parsnips, confers no skills and I've never seen anyone grow mentally stronger from chasing his own tail.

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.

Demonstrate how each of these questions helps you to manipulate your environment for optimal survival: Where did the universe come from? Did time begin? Does the immortal soul have to sing, or will god accept silent ballet?

artisticsolution wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

uwot wrote: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?'

I've looked in the Bible, and don't think it is in there.

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?

It changes from person to person. Hitler thought he was doing gods work by following the long tradition of German anti-semitism; BIn Laden by perpetrating 9/11; and the Tories, but further cutting benefits. how do I know they are wrong, Simply for the fact that I have a different system of moral thinking to them, which does not agree with mine. But I can only argue my case, as it seems perfectly obvious that there are no absolutes here. Philosophy can help show how one course of action, or set of beliefs can lead to specific consequences, and rational people ought to be able to set aside their assumptions and accept some changes. But "good" and "bad" are only value judgment upon your assumptions. What is forever dangerous is that people who believe in god think that they have a divine being behind them. All they are doing is making the same value judgement as I am; but in their case they think they are absolutely right. This makes religious morality inflexible, proselytising and oppressive.

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?

God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.

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


God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.

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?


God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.

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

I usually stay within the law. Sometimes for my own protection, sometimes because I agree with the law; other times because breaching a law I disagree with would achieve noting. And sometimes I act outside the law if the crime is victimless; such as smoking a bit of pot once in a while or driving a bit over the Speed limit.
I can foresee breaching a law for political reasons.


There are also innate tendencies in humans to behave towards other humans as if they were part of their own family. This can be seen in Apes, prides or lions - most mammals.
Many human institutions; religions, nations, races, alliances forge artificial divisions between humans so that "others" can be treated with exceptions that deny them the same rights as "we" have.
My moral aspirations would jettison all of these.
A nation is not good; neither is any religion.

Skip. Thank you for invalidating my life's work at the stroke of a pen. Howeve, notwithstanding your scorn, I still reckon it's possible to simultaneously walk and chew gum.

Obvious Leo wrote:Skip. Thank you for invalidating my life's work at the stroke of a pen.

If I had that power, I would be the world's greatest scholar - which I am not. Therefore, there must be some other factor(s) involved.

However, notwithstanding your scorn, I still reckon it's possible to simultaneously walk and chew gum.

It's not scorn; it's another perspective.

In fact, I not only agree with this

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.

but have taken much abuse on philosophy forums for submitting very similar views. (And if the god hypothesis ended there, I'd have no objection to it. I have no objection to the Big bang, because it's not reputed to watch me in the shower and get upset about what I do in there.)

Consider at least the possibility that whatever I say has no bearing on your work. Since I don't know what your work is, it couldn't. I have no animosity toward you, and the comment was not intended to invalidate or belittle anyone - including scientists and philosophers.
All I attempted to do was classify their work as practical or speculative; divergent or convergent.
I don't repudiate that opinion, but it's no more than an opinion.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.
Did I mention God here?


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


God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.
Did I mention God here?

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?


God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.

Did I mention God here?


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

My point was to discuss THE law...not GOD'S Law. Please leave your prejudice in the religious section of the forum. I am not a Christian except for the sake of having a philosophic discussion in the religious threads. Can you make that distinction or are you unable to think any other way other than 'if a person makes a Christian argument then they must be a Christian'?

artisticsolution wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.
Did I mention God here?


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


God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.
Did I mention God here?

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?


God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.

Did I mention God here?


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

My point was to discuss THE law...not GOD'S Law. Please leave your prejudice in the religious section of the forum. I am not a Christian except for the sake of having a philosophic discussion in the religious threads. Can you make that distinction or are you unable to think any other way other than 'if a person makes a Christian argument then they must be a Christian'?

Please attend to the THREAD. This thread concerns god and good.
You might not like it, but you don't get to pick me up for sticking to the fucking plot.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.
Did I mention God here?


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


God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.
Did I mention God here?

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?


God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.

Did I mention God here?


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

My point was to discuss THE law...not GOD'S Law. Please leave your prejudice in the religious section of the forum. I am not a Christian except for the sake of having a philosophic discussion in the religious threads. Can you make that distinction or are you unable to think any other way other than 'if a person makes a Christian argument then they must be a Christian'?

Please attend to the THREAD. This thread concerns god and good.
You might not like it, but you don't get to pick me up for sticking to the fucking plot.

This THREAD concerns Good minus God. WITHOUT god....NO god...Nada. Get it? So I AM sticking to the 'plot.


Edited cause I'm a little pissy today. ..but not enough to ruin uwot's thread...

So...without GOD'....Ahem....then people who do not have a strong moral compass, could use the law to discern right for wrong. Just using 'the facts' as they apply to the law would be a straight forward way to discern right from wrong...no need for god.

artisticsolution wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:



My point was to discuss THE law...not GOD'S Law. Please leave your prejudice in the religious section of the forum. I am not a Christian except for the sake of having a philosophic discussion in the religious threads. Can you make that distinction or are you unable to think any other way other than 'if a person makes a Christian argument then they must be a Christian'?

Please attend to the THREAD. This thread concerns god and good.
You might not like it, but you don't get to pick me up for sticking to the fucking plot.

This THREAD concerns Good minus God. WITHOUT god....NO god...Nada. Get it? So I AM sticking to the 'plot.


Edited cause I'm a little pissy today. ..but not enough to ruin uwot's thread...

So...without GOD'....Ahem....then people who do not have a strong moral compass, could use the law to discern right for wrong. Just using 'the facts' as they apply to the law would be a straight forward way to discern right from wrong...no need for god.

You can get as pissy as you want, but had you bothered to read my whole response then you will have found that I answered your questions perfectly.



I usually stay within the law. Sometimes for my own protection, sometimes because I agree with the law; other times because breaching a law I disagree with would achieve noting. And sometimes I act outside the law if the crime is victimless; such as smoking a bit of pot once in a while or driving a bit over the Speed limit.
I can foresee breaching a law for political reasons.


There are also innate tendencies in humans to behave towards other humans as if they were part of their own family. This can be seen in Apes, prides or lions - most mammals.
Many human institutions; religions, nations, races, alliances forge artificial divisions between humans so that "others" can be treated with exceptions that deny them the same rights as "we" have.
My moral aspirations would jettison all of these.
A nation is not good; neither is any religion.

Just like a little wanker to not quote his fucktard remarks and instead beat up on an argument I didn't make nor start!

This is what you said that I was pissy about:

H:God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.
AS:Did I mention God here?


H:God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.
AS:Did I mention God here?

H:God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.
AS:Did I mention God here?

3 times? Really?

How are you any different that the theist IC? You both seem like educated people but then proceed to make the stupidest arguments based on your "feelings" about what you thought someone said, vs. what they actually said.

That's because you're a prejudice p****...not because your atheist...which you probably only are because you are following the 'hip' crowd. As I think if you ran with Christians you'd still be like the herd you belong to...and just be another Christian. It's just in your nature...herd mentality.

So tell me atheist... how does having a herd mentality really make you more intelligent OR creative? And there in lies the true test of morality perhaps.

You want to discuss 'how to be good WITHOUT God'? Then fucking do so....otherwise shut your mouth if you're only here to beat up on an argument I didn't make.

My moral aspirations would jettison all of these.
A nation is not good; neither is any religion.

Brain dead fucking moron....a nation is neither good nor bad....it's not an individual. It has no moral reasoning. A religion is neither good nor bad....it's not an individual. It has no moral reasoning.

The fact that you think religion or nation is 'not good' , is the problem here. A religion or nation is as 'good' or 'bad' as the individual who follows it. Meaning, you can tell who the individual is by the way he interprets his world...whether or not he is theist or atheist.

artisticsolution wrote:Just like a little wanker to not quote his fucktard remarks and instead beat up on an argument I didn't make nor start!

This is what you said that I was pissy about:

H:God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.
AS:Did I mention God here?


H:God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.
AS:Did I mention God here?

H:God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.
AS:Did I mention God here?

3 times? Really?

How are you any different that the theist IC? You both seem like educated people but then proceed to make the stupidest arguments based on your "feelings" about what you thought someone said, vs. what they actually said.

That's because you're a prejudice p****...not because your atheist...which you probably only are because you are following the 'hip' crowd. As I think if you ran with Christians you'd still be like the herd you belong to...and just be another Christian. It's just in your nature...herd mentality.

So tell me atheist... how does having a herd mentality really make you more intelligent OR creative? And there in lies the true test of morality perhaps.

You want to discuss 'how to be good WITHOUT God'? Then fucking do so....otherwise shut your mouth if you're only here to beat up on an argument I didn't make.

My moral aspirations would jettison all of these.
A nation is not good; neither is any religion.

Brain dead fucking moron....a nation is neither good nor bad....it's not an individual. It has no moral reasoning. A religion is neither good nor bad....it's not an individual. It has no moral reasoning.

The fact that you think religion or nation is 'not good' , is the problem here. A religion or nation is as 'good' or 'bad' as the individual who follows it. Meaning, you can tell who the individual is by the way he interprets his world...whether or not he is theist or atheist.

I don't think I've seen you swear before Hobbes can be very trying. I'm not sure I agree that a nation can't be good or bad. If you have enough people with a certain mind-set in one place, it creates a 'persona'. The same is said about large corporations, and studies have determined that they have the persona of a psychopath.
As for morals, only a crazy person gets their 'morals' from the bible. God is always smiting and smoting some hapless person or other. He's a genocidal maniac. The odd thing is that so many self-proclaimed christians hate certain groups of people eg gays, yet Christ never mentioned homosexuality. They seem to be rather confused.

artisticsolution wrote:Just like a little wanker to not quote his fucktard remarks and instead beat up on an argument I didn't make nor start!

This is what you said that I was pissy about:

H:God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.
AS:Did I mention God here?


H:God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.
AS:Did I mention God here?

H:God does not make the law. Laws exist regardless of god.
AS:Did I mention God here?

3 times? Really?
.

Get a fucking life you stupid bitch.

I have a question. It's not really relevant to the thread, but no one ever comments on my threads.
Do religious people grieve to a lesser degree than non-believers? It seems to me that would logically be the case, given that they believe their loved ones are still around, forever, and that they will eventually see them again.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Do religious people grieve to a lesser degree than non-believers? It seems to me that would logically be the case, given that they believe their loved ones are still around, forever, and that they will eventually see them again.

Although religion may be something that people can redirect their focus to in hard times... the theists I've known have felt things achingly deeply, and it can last a long time. Seeing their loved ones again beyond this life may sound encouraging, but it doesn't seem to help whatever loneliness or emptiness exists here. And I'm not sure the idea is any more effective than redirecting one's focus in other ways that are joyful right here and now. We are either consumed by stuff and become mindlessly reactionary... or we're not. That seems to indicate what our experience will be like.

Lacewing wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Do religious people grieve to a lesser degree than non-believers? It seems to me that would logically be the case, given that they believe their loved ones are still around, forever, and that they will eventually see them again.

Although religion may be something that people can redirect their focus to in hard times... the theists I've known have felt things achingly deeply, and it can last a long time. Seeing their loved ones again beyond this life may sound encouraging, but it doesn't seem to help whatever loneliness or emptiness exists here. And I'm not sure the idea is any more effective than redirecting one's focus in other ways that are joyful right here and now. We are either consumed by stuff and become mindlessly reactionary... or we're not. That seems to indicate what our experience will be like.

Excellent response. Thanks. I think it's highly likely thought that humans came up with the idea of an afterlife as a way of trying to cope with the awful feeling of grief.