Atheism and morality (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, October 18, 2010, 21:00 (5127 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> > Morals certainly exist in terms of how we've constructed our institutions, and despite my claim to moral contextualism on my part, I do find room for a sort of universal morality in the fact that none of us is nor ever will be "the only man on earth." However the people in a society determine what morals and laws they will live under.
> 
> The problem with is statement is much the same as the problem with the statement "science by consensus". I have said many times that I think humans have the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, but not the capacity to do the right thing. The idea that a societal consensus can define something 'right or wrong' is utter rubbish. What society can do is make something legal or illegal, which has little if anything to do with right/wrong or moral/immoral. There does exist a 'right/wrong', but it does not lie in a book, or society, or in a legal system. It lies in the 'heart' of a person.-We can set laws; but where do the laws come from? They come from a general sense of what's right and wrong. Most people do "the right thing." (Whatever that happens to be at that period of time.) We make laws to provide a justification for punishing those who do not. My evidence is the simple fact that we live in groups. We couldn't live in groups if we were each acting as the last man on earth. I use the term "last man on earth" because the only time that morals/ethics of any kind have any meaning whatsoever is in the context of living with at least one other person. -The book "The Lucifer Principle" demonstrates how the powerful in social structures can set things up for people to "do the wrong thing." Wrong, in this context is in the sanctified murder/torture/etc. of other human beings. Hitler is a prime example of a "societal consensus." "Right" was objectifying and persecuting the lesser race(s). -How about the basic questions, such as "When is it appropriate to kill another human being?" The fact of the matter is that what is "right" for this answer is a three-pronged answer:-1. When my life is threatened with the same. 
2. When my family is threatened with the same.
3. When my society is threatened with the same.-How about deception? When is deception appropriate? -There is no black and white response to these questions. The reason is that they are not "binary" in nature. There is no yes/no, or right/wrong. The imposition of say, "The Ten Commandments" is an act of the social organism imposing its collective will; by declaring what is right or wrong; giving up true freedom for safety. -The only way "higher" morality (as it is espoused by pacifists) can exist, is if the human lust for power, (as in, the will to be more) could somehow be willingly relinquished. However, this will is intrinsic to our nature and can be no more subsumed than the hunger of a Lion for the flesh of Gazelle. My drive for a Master's in Computer Science, Warren Buffet's drive for wealth, our own will to truth--are all consequences of our creative soul's drive to dominate.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"