A philosophical debate.

I had a lengthy discussion recently with some people about this. Many of these people were religious individuals and had a quite different view than I did, which made it interesting since I lean towards being atheist/agnostic.

The question is, do morals exist? Or more precisely, do morals exist outside of being a concept residing only in the mind. The same can be asked for "right and wrong'.

Many of the religious people I spoke with, seem to believe that morals are a kind of invisible law of the universe that god created, and people go through their lives trying to understand as much of that moral law as possible, and follow it.

I believe that morals, and right and wrong are constructs of the mind one creates as one goes through life, and they are based on life experience. But I dont believe they exist outside the individuals perceptions. You can compare morals to lines that are drawn on a map. Those lines do not exist anywhere in reality, however people will react as if they really do exist. But the lines that separate places on a map are just constructs existing only in the mind.

Since I believe that morals or any foundation for what one thinks of as right and wrong is based on life experience, this would mean that no two individuals perceptions of those morals or right and wrong would be the same. There might be overlap in some cases, but never two that are alike. Even in extreme cases like murder, you will still find people willing to make exceptions.

So tell me, what do you think about morals?

I used to think morals existed until I found RM.

I am an atheist as well. I believe people know the difference bw right and wrong but it is your life experiences that give you the sense of what is right and wrong. of course hurting others and killing is wrong, no matter what you believe in but what is right or wrong can differ from person to person. When my best friend was dying of cancer I remember lying to him and saying he look fine and that everything was going to be fine. of course I was lying but I felt that lying was ok because of the circumstances so therefore, for me, it was right. Others would say lying is wrong under any circumstance. I know this is a very simple explanation for this but I am just trying to get my point across.

That is why I believe that if people are cloned they will not be the same person under any means. They are made up of the same genes but it is our life experiences that make us who we are, not genetics(to some degree)

Why, as an atheist, do you have a problem with lying?

rm is just a place for our "id" to run amok

Why do you say that? Is it wrong to kill a fish for food? Is it wrong to kill someone who is trying to kill you? Is it wrong that the praying mantids will sometimes bite their partners head off during sex?

It seems like you believe right and wrong are set concepts that exist as invisible laws of the universe.

Do you only tell the truth because God tells you to?

Lying results in distrust among friends, poor results among coworkers, uncomfortable situations with girlfriends, heartbreak among family members, death among soldiers in Iraq, and a general feeling of discomfort on the part of the liar trying to keep their story straight.

last night I had to do some research on Hammurabi's Codes and I think morals have sprung from laws create to keep a civil society. I do believe that some morals are innate, but most of them are taught. I am a firm believer in nuture over nature.

This is an impossible debate because there are certain things that I find idiotic and don't consider rational morals but then I come up against the issue of killing. It is morally repugnant to me and I would assume most everyone feels the same way.

Is killing morally repugnant to you in all cases? No exceptions? What about my examples? Killing animals for food? etc.

Historically moral codes were social constructions--what sorts of rules are necessary for social order, preservation, and a justification for the status quo. Since that basic precepts are the same throughout the world you have a lot of basic similarities throughout different cultural times and spaces.

There isn't really any one type of moral code that can be universally grounded. At best you can determine if someone's actions are consistent with their first principles. What are the brute moral facts about the universe that the person accepts--you can tease out the morality/immortality of their specific behavior from there.

The tricky part is that while in reality all moral behavior is intensely relative (even if many people share it becuase they are socialized the same way, etc), it only works if we pretend that it does.

It's worth pointing out too that relativism is not the same thing as acceptance/appreciation of cultural diversity. The later is in itself a genuine moral value.

So there does exist a right and wrong.

No, but I'm sure there's good and bad.

Seriously, if there are no morals, even in absence of God, then there can be no society. Even athiests don't want to live in caves and wear old animal carcasses.

I'm about as secular as possible at this point, however I've always used this as a guideline(I'm limiting the discussion to my fellow man): any intentional action on my part which results in the physical or psychological harm of a person(that would include myself) is considered "immoral".

Buggy's self defense exception is noted, and euthanasia, in some cases, is possibly an exception. Certainly there are some "gray" areas in this debate, but I think there is a large "black and white" area, also.

Why?



What if I play a silly trick on my friend and tell him I ate all his cake, but I really didnt. The "psychological harm" there is pretty small. But is it "immoral"?
At what point does it become "immoral"? When I eat his cake and steal his money? It sounds like we are talking about degrees here.
And who is to be the ultimate judge of what constitutes "harm"? It's really just subjective and will differ from person to person. So if that's the case, then it's still a situation where morals only exist in the individuals mind. There is no set rule or law to determine them. It is left to the perception of the individual.

Because animals are inferior and unable to construct societies that can undergo social change over generations or derive ideas that influcene social changes over generations.




If that individual operates without impunity then yes. But we live in a society that judges based on an agreed apon common code of conduct.

I think there are nature based codes of conduct. We have guilt for a reason. We find beautiful things hard to destroy, thus babies are "cute". We protect what we procieve as our property and don't kill unless needed. These ideas may not be universial amoung all races, but there are real genetic differences that can explain differences in behavior.

I'm not really sure I agree with that. Humans certainly have a self proclaimed superior attitude, however.



That's not true. Many primates have show to have such capacity. Though, not close to the scale humans do. Furthermore, I would not use such ability to judge weather a lifeform was inferior or not.



A code of conduct which you will never get full agreement on by any two peoples. So, it's more of an agreed upon compromise.

Goddamit Buggy!!

I knew it was you that ate my cake!!

I think that morals are probably the result of both nurture and nature, mostly nature IMO.

But don't you thing there is some innate set of morals in all of us. We all have, theoretically, a collective conscience. Something that has become innate because it has been part of our genes through generations and generations of evolution. We are all naturally afraid of the dark, for instance. This isn't something that was taught to us, it's just something we all have and need to overcome.

I'm sure that there are some things that our brain just subconsciously knows is right or wrong just due to the fact that the our cerebral cortex is developed from the genes of all our ancestors.

I would say people tend to know what is right and wrong FOR THEMSELVES. However, that cannot be applied to any other person. All brains and brain chemisrty is different. Just because one person thinks something is right for them, doesnt make it right for anyone else. I'm sure there is overlap, like anything else, but you cannot assume there is anything set in stone.

No absolutely not. I just think that there is probably some natural instinct of right and wrong. If it was totally up to our environment to teach us what is right vs wrong, i think their would be a lot more crazy serial killers out there and whatnot. There are a hell of a lot of bad parents out there. If it was totally up to one's upbringing, there would be a lot of fucked up people in this world.

Self preservation of one's species is probably just as innate as the urge to propagate one's species. Which is vital to the survival of said species. I think there are a lot of things that just go against our biological instincts. These are some of the things we consider morally 'wrong'.