by IP_SEC 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
This a real feel good thread for me. I almost get chills reading because the comments of so many of you describe the situation so well. For a long time I described myself as an agnostic, mainly because it sounded a bit less offensive than athiest.
For those struggling with that, consider this essay:
Thank you all for not being dogmatic or condescending.
It seems my "A question" has turned into multiple questions. My first question had to do with the continuation of life in some fashion after death, which leads questions about the human mind and consciousness, which evolves toward my next question.
How can morality be explained? There are some things that we universally see as right and wrong. Do we all agree that murder is wrong? Rape is wrong? Child abuse is wrong? Do we all feel a disgust for people who do these things?
If we are merely machines, animals with some strange permutations, what is right and wrong? What mechinism decided to plant the alteration in us that some things are acceptable and some arent?
If there is nothing special about us and morality is just some emergent behavior, then why feel disdain for a rapist? Is he not just spreading his genetic material? Is not a killer just submitting to the whims of natural selection by removing competition?
I'm not trying to be arguementitive, just trying to understand other points of view.
Thanks
IP_SEC
If there is nothing special about us and morality is just some emergent behavior, then why feel disdain for a rapist? Is he not just spreading his genetic material? Is not a killer just submitting to the whims of natural selection by removing competition
If you?ve ever been to a slaughter house, you can see the fear of present death in the animals, especially pigs. I don?t think this is a uniquely human experience. I think the primary unique human experience is being able to considers things like these and type your thoughts on the internet.
Anthropologist have observed what appears to be ?moral dilemmas? in many higher level animals. Elephant distressed, monkey abandonment, and dolphin rape. There?s a great link to this, I had a google search but can?t find it. I?m currently working, but when I get some time I try to locate it for you.
Steve.
IP_SEC:
The right of self ownership and private property are the foundations of morality, ethics and right and wrong. Anything that interferes with self ownership and private property is immoral, unethical and wrong.
That is the basis for the Atheist philosophy I follow. It is called Objectivism and was developed by the novelist Ayn Rand.
There is nothing higher then the human mind and nothing greater then human achievement. No mysticism is needed for morality, ethics or right and wrong.
There are some things that we universally see as right and wrong. Do we all agree that murder is wrong? Rape is wrong? Child abuse is wrong? Do we all feel a disgust for people who do these things?
I'm not sure how universal we can really say these concepts are. Some cultures performed human sacrifice, even child sacrifice. Some cultures today practice 'punishment rape' of women, sanctioned by the local government. What one culture (or family) calls child abuse is just proper discipline to another.
Most of what we think of as morality is really just rules for living that we have been taught. Think of the folks that survived the depression. To them, throwing away half a sandwich because you're not hungry is crazy, idiotic, even disgusting. *WASTING* food?!? To you and I, it's $0.50 worth of crap our body doesn't need anyway, but to them in the culture they grew up in, it's just plain wrong to waste food.
There's even a crazy religion that makes parents shun kids and kids shun parents over disagreements about the interpretation of Bible verses.
Based on all that, I don't think you can call anyone's morals universal.
As far as punishing people for following their natural tendencies, that's a bit of a puzzle. As a society, we can't allow people to kill other people for any reason, regardless of their broken brains. To be fair to such disadvantaged individuals, we may put them in hospitals rather than jails. But we can't let them do whatever their physiology tells them to do. If they can't obey the rules, we must eliminate them. It may not be completely fair, but that's the way the cookie gets crushed, pulverized and totally obliterated.
Dave
IP SEC,
IMO for social / psychological (in any case structural) reasons some disruptive or destructive behaviours happen and just have to be stopped (or limited). I guess some analogies could be found in animal "societies" too.
But disdain, or disgust? They sure are "programmed" as part of the social sanction, but I doubt they are any "deeper" than that: if I really were in somebody's shoes I would just be him/her. I am what I am because I am where I am. Nothing to be proud of in the end. Any social rule implies transgression and someone has to be the villain. Next time it could be me.
I can't improve on what SNG and rem have said.. I feel the same way!
I'm not a full fledged atheist. I have decided to just let it be. Whatever will be, will be. Trying to anticipate just makes us nervous. Anyway, I try to live as if there is no afterlife. If there is one, I will be gladly surprised. If there`s none, I won`t be disappointed.
IP_SEC,
I think you may find some interest in the "divine command" theory of ethics...
I suggest this article:
http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/2003/01/20/theDivineCommandTheoryOfEthics.html
I've read a few books on the subject of morality and ethics and evolution. Ultimately the role of kin and group selection is the key to understanding how a complex sense of community responsibilty and accountability evolved. Right now I have just opened a book entitled, "The Prehistory of the Mind: the congnitive origins of art, religion and science".
To anyone debating ethics with a deist who insists that without "god" there is nothing but relativistic selfishness, ask them how they know god is good. Watch them squirm and rattle on without dealing with the question. This single question exposes the reality that god is simply an embodiment of instictive and cultural standards, rather than the source of these standards.
