Atheism and morality (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, November 01, 2010, 07:26 (5114 days ago) @ dhw

Not at all. I have just been unbelievably busy this past two weeks. Four birthdays, two out of town trips, and 9 people staying in a two bedroom apt for five days, and an upcoming anniversary. I just haven't had much time to get to my computer.-> (i) I don't understand why in your last sentence you have distinguished between morality and 'right and wrong'. In my view, and according to every dictionary definition I have seen, the two concepts are inseparable. Nor do I understand what you mean by "not a moral imperative". If the UI's form of right and wrong is not a code relating to our behaviour towards one another, what is its relevance to morality?
> -I distinguish between the two because I view right and wrong as an absolute, regardless of whether there is one person or a billion, whereas, as we have repeatedly stated, morality can only exist when there is interaction between two or more conscious beings. So while a society might be able to decide what their 'moral' standard is, that is only governing the social interaction between constituents, not defining an objective right and wrong. Hence the statement: "Therefore, the idea that society can determine what is 'right' and 'wrong', to me, is utter rubbish."-
> Firstly, you agree that "morality can only exist where one person's actions affect someone else". If the UI's objective form of right and wrong is something "humans innately understand, and lose as we grow older", do you believe that all babies begin by unconsciously knowing how to behave considerately, and then gradually become more selfish as they grow older? If not, when and how do they acquire their understanding?
> -Again there is the distinction in my statement between 'morality' and 'right/wrong'. Considerate behavior is a moral imperative designated by society and not necessarily 'right/wrong'. For example, in the state, we would consider it monstrous to slice someones stomach repeatedly in order to produce a pattern of scarring while in Africa it is a right of passage to some tribes. Is cutting someone else right or wrong? If it is right does that mean anyone who assaults someone with a knife is right? If it is wrong does that mean that surgeons and the Africans should be imprisoned? I do believe that children possess a certain innate understanding of right and wrong, though they do not possess an innate morality as differentiated above. How they acquire it, I don't know. Genetic memory perhaps.-> Secondly, you go on to say: "Therefore, the idea that society can determine what is 'right' and 'wrong', to me, is utter rubbish." I can't see any logical link here. Murder, theft, rape, child abuse, slander, cheating are all instances of one person's actions adversely affecting someone else, and our society has determined that all of these are wrong, immoral (and in most cases also illegal). Why is this rubbish?
> -As a soldier in Iraq, if I would have drawn my weapon and taken another human life, that would have been murder. Would it have been right or wrong, moral or immoral? Is there justification for murder? Is feeding your children food that is bad for their bodies less abusive than beating them? Or to phrase it differently, is there a moral differentiation between poisoning and beating? Is it abuse to subject a child to movies, games, or lyrics that contain sexual, violent, or drug related themes? Is a reputation a physical thing that can be damaged by falsely spoken words? Is an attack on an abstract, intangible idea something that can be considered wrong? Is cheating in a rigged game really cheating? I am not saying that I disagree with any of these being immoral or illegal but that defining an objective case would be exceedingly difficult in most cases.-> You complain ... in my view quite rightly ... about what we as individuals may see as inherent flaws: societal injustice, silly taboos, ostracism, aggression against people who disagree with prevailing norms. No-one is saying that society's determination of what is 'right' and 'wrong' makes its decisions objective or universally acceptable. There will always be conflicts. But you're passing judgement on values, whereas I'm merely stating where values come from. Hence my asking you why you won't accept Matt's summary: "[...] our moral sense is developed by (and only by) our contact with other people. And the culture we live in is what determines 'right or wrong', even though no objective 'right' or 'wrong' exists." It may be that you intended your reference to a UI to be your response, but then I would have to go back to the question whether you believe all babies are born with innate knowledge of the UI and its objective form of right and wrong, and the all-important question that follows it.-I have agreed with Matt's statement to an extent, only disagreeing with the statement that defining morality also defines right and wrong. Society can only define a moral standpoint, which is as fluid and dynamic as water, and changes as often as the weather. So from my point of view society can not define a right and wrong because right and wrong will not change based on culture, race, societal norms, or any other variable.