Quote :

"This is one of the first and most obvious approaches to the problem. I've very often tried thinking of things in these terms due to arguments related to things like environmental stewardship and social issues. But not so fast. The next obvious step to take is "how do you know?" How do we know the flourishing of advanced life is better than the alternative? Cue evil villain who tries to destroy the Earth!"

The assertion that flourishing is preferable to not flourishing is subjective by definition. It is, as with all statements about what human beings ought to care about, a first principle. You are free to say that, rather than being concerned with human well being, we instead ought to be concerned with the spirited consumption of cheddar cheese. That's your right to do, but in doing so you are not disputing the objective nature of human well being, which encompasses all of the mental states and psychological disorders you will want to mention. And it doesn't say anything at all about ethics, unless perhaps if you're a dairy farmer. It's just a peculiar first principle that people will except, or they won't.

Quote :

"But while there are multiple solutions for life-purpose, there are also those that don't work..."

This statement, particularly the use of the word "work," implies that you believe there are better and worse life-purposes. I couldn't agree more, which is why it is important that we admit that our behaviors have real, measurable, objectively true consequences, and start forming some tentative conclusions about how we should behave. And I dare say that some of these conclusions, once we admit that it's legitimate and worthwhile to make them, will be fairly obvious.

That this will not bode well for the sensibilities of many religious people should not deter us, unless we're prepared to concede authority over these matters to people who think the best prescriptions for human well being can be divined from a book of Bronze Age mythology, and who think that this life is just a temporary annoyance and that real happiness will only be available once we're all dead. We have seen, and indeed continue to see, how this always works out.

[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 9:48 AM. Reason : ]

7/7/2011 9:38:09 AM

What does objective morality even mean? Why do Christians consider morality handed down from authority 'objective' anyway? We know that ordering an army to kill women and children is wrong, yet the authority that hands down their morality has done just that. It seems obvious that morality supercedes any intelligent mind, including a god.

7/7/2011 9:45:30 AM

If you admit that morality relates to the well being of conscious beings, then you have conceded that morality is subject to objective facts. Health, be it physical or mental (to the extent that the distinction still means anything), it cannot be denied, relates to states of the conscious mind. These states of mind are the products of brains, which we can measure objectively (if only primitively).

Again, you are free to say that one's life-purpose should not be linked to morality. You could even say that one's life-purpose should be the pursuit of immorality. But this is beside the point - it's just a difference in worldview. It is not a refutation of the objective nature of the principle as defined.

You can also fashion a different definition of the term morality, but again, this is just word games. If you want to define morality as the square root of pi, be my guest. But the moment you do, we will just be talking about two completely different concepts that coincidentally share a name.

[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 10:20 AM. Reason : typo-ridden, this post was (probably still is)]

7/7/2011 10:00:17 AM

^^^ I think one of the most difficult things to wrestle with regarding objective morality is that even the totalitarianism side of the political spectrum isn't necessarily wrong. Keeping a tighter leash on the actions of individuals, on its face, can truly aid the proliferation and preservation of the human race along with the rest of our family of life.

But then again, it does turn into an evidence-based discussion. One can claim that "absolute power corrupts absolutely", meaning that a more highly totalitarianism political system tends toward self-destruction. Checks and balances are good by this argument, but I most certainly they have failed to work as intended in the US.

So while I think we can definitely agree on some amount of morality being objective (until burro comments, I'm sure), the implications of that are still subjective, but only inasmuch as we have different ideas of what the evidence points to.

[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 10:02 AM. Reason : ^]

7/7/2011 10:02:02 AM

Quote :

"You can also fashion a different definition of the term morality, but again, this just word games. If you want to define morality as the square root of pi, be my guest. But the moment you do, we will just be talking about to completely different concepts that coincidentally share a name."

This is why I think that life-purpose is important to focus on. We can't say much in absolute terms, but I think we absolutely share one common problem, which is that we were given life without ever having asked for it. Yes, the idea of being asked before coming into existence is a paradox, but that doesn't resolve the question of what to do with life once you have it.

7/7/2011 10:04:44 AM

I used to be atheist. I am now agnostic. I believe more and more in existence of the divine, but I refuse to ever submit to it. I would like to understand the nature of it.

I no longer fully believe that my life could be only about my ~7 decades here. If it is, why bother? Why should anyone bother if the inevitable is just going to render it moot?

Anyway stu, what do you say to a person like me?

7/7/2011 10:07:27 AM

^

Because I'm such a terrible person

7/7/2011 10:09:51 AM

Of course one cannot be certain, for lack of evidence, about the perfect balance between personal liberty and the powers of the State. But only for the lack of evidence. Our inability to draw absolute conclusions from objectively true evidence does not mean the matter is suddenly a subjective one.

Either Uncle Billy got runned over by a moose on his hunting trip and died of blunt trauma to the chest, or he didn't. That we may not have all the necessary facts to know for sure what happened does not turn the question into a matter of preference.

^up there somewhere.

[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 10:22 AM. Reason : ]

7/7/2011 10:16:32 AM

Quote :

"I used to be atheist. I am now agnostic. I believe more and more in existence of the divine, but I refuse to ever submit to it. I would like to understand the nature of it. I no longer fully believe that my life could be only about my ~7 decades here. If it is, why bother? Why should anyone bother if the inevitable is just going to render it moot? Anyway stu, what do you say to a person like me?"

I'm interested in knowing why the question 'why bother' doesn't apply to lifespans longer than ~7 decades? Why when suddenly your lifetime is longer (even possibly infinite) why don't you ask the question 'why bother?' If your existence is infinite, then it seems to me that when you divide the relative importance of each moment across the entire time, each moment becomes meaningless.

Existence itself is important. Every moment you exist, you act, you make things happen. You interact with other people, you make a (albeit small in the scope of the Universe) difference in the world.

Yes, you will die. Yes you will be forgotten. If anything that makes the time that you do have even more important. All you have is this time, so enjoy it, and allow other people to enjoy it. Humans gain sense of fulfillment in a wide variety of things: family, charity, fabricating stuff, enjoying art, activity. Just because we all end up like Ozymandias doesn't make the moment that we feel fulfilled any less meaningful.

And that really is the point. You have a very short amount of time; do you want to spend that time worrying or spend it feeling fulfilled? Do whatever it is that makes you feel fulfilled (as long as it doesn't get in the way of others doing the same). This can even be nothing at all. It's your life, do what you want with it.

Quote :

"I used to be atheist. I am now agnostic. I believe more and more in existence of the divine, but I refuse to ever submit to it. I would like to understand the nature of it."

My question for you here is "what tools do you use to understand the nature of things?"

[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 10:21 AM. Reason : .]

7/7/2011 10:18:17 AM

I'll be the first person to say that all morality is subjective. All morality can be scaled down to collectivism & instinct.

7/7/2011 10:34:00 AM

Quote :

"I'm interested in knowing why the question 'why bother' doesn't apply to lifespans longer than ~7 decades? Why when suddenly your lifetime is longer (even possibly infinite) why don't you ask the question 'why bother?' If your existence is infinite, then it seems to me that when you divide the relative importance of each moment across the entire time, each moment becomes meaningless."

I think that we manage to deal with our existentialist crisis as long as we know that we are a part of something bigger and maintain compassion toward other life in the universe. Like I was saying earlier, I consider this to be largely biological and emotional. It's hard to put what I'm saying into a coherent rational framework.

You have a good point about larger lifespans though. In particular, the Fermi Paradox seems to be significant cause for despair. Is there any greater meaning to the entirety of our existence?

This leads to consideration of two things:
- The boundaries of civilization/life
- The boundaries of communication

The bizarre reality of the world that we live in is that the boundaries of communication vastly exceed the boundaries of life. We can send information to the other side of the planet in a fraction of a second, and yet, instantaneous overseas communication has existed for around 100 years.

Funny enough, this is actually a relatively new phenomena, extending no further than your great great great grandparents. The globe was full of unknowns before that, and before that the globe was full of completely separately evolved civilizations as far as any observer could tell.

The ultimate resolution of the Fermi Paradox in the form of first contact with an alien civilization would instantly indicate to us that the boundaries of life in the universe expand vastly beyond the boundaries of communication, and probably infinitely so. How do we feel about either possibility? Which would we prefer? Is there any way to formulate the universe in which you will not be contemplating suicide?

7/7/2011 10:34:43 AM

Quote :

"All morality can be scaled down to collectivism & instinct."

How does that make it subjective?

7/7/2011 10:44:19 AM

Here's how I currently deal with my existential crisis.

At least I won't have to watch any more Dora the Explorer episodes when I'm dead.

Quote :

"How does that make it subjective?"

And that's what I'm getting at when I ask what 'objective morality' even means. 'objective' in what scope exactly?


[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 10:58 AM. Reason : morality, not reality]

7/7/2011 10:51:43 AM

Exactly. What makes any moral "objective"? Majority vote?

7/7/2011 11:09:00 AM

As in, subject to objective facts. Moral behavior increases the well being (which is the same as saying happiness, or flourishing, or health) of conscious beings. Well being relates to states of mind. Happiness and sadness, and the whole spectrum of emotions, are totally within the purview of neuroscience. There is no reason to think that any of our thoughts or emotions occur independently of our brains.

In other words, anything that we could say relates to human well being, which I would say is the entire basis of morality, can be objectively studied as it manifests itself in our brains. So if poverty causes a net negative reaction in the minds of those subjected to it, then we can objectively say that behavior that alleviates poverty is objectively moral.

Apologies if I am becoming less and less lucid. It is about time to turn in.

edit: But yeah, language does tend to be defined at least semi-collectively. If the majority of English speakers wanted to define morality as something other than the concern for human well being, then the definition of morality would change. And I would have to use a different term in describing my worldview - but this change would be entirely superficial. It wouldn't change the fact that well being can be objectively studied.

[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 11:23 AM. Reason : ]

7/7/2011 11:09:58 AM

Quote :

"My question for you here is "what tools do you use to understand the nature of things?""

Great question. Hope to find the answer. For now, I guess read, think, and listen.

7/7/2011 11:45:31 AM

Quote :

"As in, subject to objective facts. Moral behavior increases the well being (which is the same as saying happiness, or flourishing, or health) of conscious beings. Well being relates to states of mind. Happiness and sadness, and the whole spectrum of emotions, are totally within the purview of neuroscience. There is no reason to think that any of our thoughts or emotions occur independently of our brains. In other words, anything that we could say relates to human well being, which I would say is the entire basis of morality, can be objectively studied as it manifests itself in our brains. So if poverty causes a net negative reaction in the minds of those subjected to it, then we can objectively say that behavior that alleviates poverty is objectively moral."

Yeah, I did have trouble with the coherency of this.

Either way, I disagree with your claims. It is not true that anything that relates to well being can be objectively studied. This is awfully close to a direct utilitarian perspective, which doesn't hold up under all circumstances.

Someday, provided we make it that long (hopefully), we will be dealing with life, fully intelligent life with just as much claim to being conscious beings as us that was created through different processes. I mean life that is not within our tree of life. You probably can't objectively study the well-being of such beings and this is a statement made through a variety of science fiction works. Science fiction IMO is terrible about being scientifically accurate, but the authors are serious thinkers who have every ability to entertain these philosophic issues as deep and deeper than what we are now.

Likewise, alien life may take issue with many necessary aspects of the continuation of human life that entail suffering. Like sperm and egg cells that are snuffed out of existence - it's not a bug, it's a feature of Earth-based life! There is animal and even plant husbandry where life is created and destroyed routinely to sustain our life. And why do we have to die in the first place? What a bummer. To be honest, I think philosophies like Buddhism do a far far better job of addressing the realities of life than things like Christianity do. But even Buddhism goes tangenting off into pointless mysticism.

I am most excited to consider conscious life that comes from computer-like nano-constructed brains. I can't help but think that any level of complexity sufficient for consciousness will have to have some "drive to live" circuitry. The point that we create a computer that tries to kill itself will be the point we know we've approached human intelligence.

7/7/2011 11:46:30 AM

"Well-being" itself lacks objectivity.

7/7/2011 11:47:52 AM

I think Sam Harris even admits to this. But his response is that in every field of study, certain things are accepted as axiomatic. Like in logic, you have to agree to logical constants being valid. Or in science you have to agree that empiricism is valid.

In the science of morality (when such a thing exists) there will be axioms that can't really be "proven" but are evident and must hold for the science to hold up. Health being the yardstick will probably be one of those axioms.

Does this mean it isn't objective? Well, what do you mean by objective? Is anything relating to human experience objective?

7/7/2011 12:11:08 PM

Quote :

"It is not true that anything that relates to well being can be objectively studied."

Name one indicator of well being that cannot be objectively studied.

Quote :

"Someday, provided we make it that long (hopefully), we will be dealing with life, fully intelligent life with just as much claim to being conscious beings as us that was created through different processes. I mean life that is not within our tree of life. You probably can't objectively study the well-being of such beings..."

I can't imagine why they wouldn't be, at least in principle.

Quote :

""Well-being" itself lacks objectivity."

In what sense?

[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 12:55 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2011 12:45:13 PM

Quote :

" Is anything relating to human experience objective?"

Endorphins are the only objective "good" I can come up with. Thus, I see pure hedonism as the only moral truth. Everything else is a figurative construct.

^because it's philosophic, not factual

[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 1:31 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2011 1:23:58 PM

I don't know about that.

Even philosophy can be studied objectively. We know (you may not believe this) that everything that is the human mind is created by and contained within the physical brain, which can be studied objectively. We don't have a full understanding of the brain's physiology and how that relates to the states of the mind, but it's a relatively new science. Give it time.

7/7/2011 1:34:59 PM

Quote :

"In other words, anything that we could say relates to human well being, which I would say is the entire basis of morality, can be objectively studied as it manifests itself in our brains."

If the basis of morality is human well being, i.e. for behavior to be considered moral it must improve (or at least not decrease) overall human well being, that's utilitarianism. The problem that I already discussed with that point of view is still a problem: as humans, we don't know exactly what behaviors will increase happiness on the aggregate over time. We just don't. Humans try to implement policies, and they'll work well for a while until they collapse and everyone is more miserable than they would have been if nothing had been done in the first place.

Even then, there are many behaviors that I would consider moral that would not necessarily improve the well being of other humans. Let's think about two people that are in a long-term relationship, but the relationship has gotten worse over time and has become very self-destructive for both parties. One party makes the wise decision to end it, citing irreconcilable differences. Going forward from the break up, the other party enters a downward spiral which eventually leads to their death.

In this example, the party that formally ended the relationship did the right thing. They recognized that the arrangement was self-destructive and made a tough decision that should have been best for both parties. However, even if it was the right decision, it did not lead to greater human well being.

The overall point here is that moral behavior has to be informed by present knowledge, not speculation on what may happen way down the line. If you tie morality to human well being, you must claim to have knowledge of the future, which you do not. In fact, it's impossible to weigh the social cost of behavior, so a different moral framework has to be used.

7/7/2011 1:45:59 PM

Your example avails itself to objective scrutiny. If the person who died suffered less of a decrease in happiness than the increase in happiness experienced by the person who terminated the relationship, which seems likely given their miserable state of mind to begin with and apparent dependency issues of the former, then I would say the choice of the former was a moral one.

Quote :

"as humans, we don't know exactly what behaviors will increase happiness on the aggregate over time."

That we are not able to make absolute truth claims about issues subject to objective study does not mean that those issues become those truths do not exist. Just because we lack the instrumentation to sufficiently quantify the whole range of emotional possibilities does not mean that things like happiness and depression are matters of mere preference.

[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2011 2:05:56 PM

I believe in the closure of observable events and the observable consequences of theoretical events which prove good predictors of the natural world. Once theists can explain to me how a view of God can fit into this, I may pick it up. To echo Laplace, though, I have no need of that hypothesis.

[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2011 2:14:32 PM

Quote :

"That we are not able to make absolute truth claims about issues subject to objective study does not mean that those issues become those truths do not exist. Just because we lack the instrumentation to sufficiently quantify the whole range of emotional possibilities does not mean that things like happiness and depression are matters of mere preference."

Alright. Then, yes, indicators of human well being can be studied objectively (though what conditions would yield "happiness" vary from person to person), but the connection between well being and morality isn't clear.

7/7/2011 2:29:29 PM

Quote :

"Then, yes, indicators of human well being can be studied objectively (though what conditions would yield "happiness" vary from person to person), but the connection between well being and morality isn't clear."

Perhaps it's not clear, but I think there's clearly some connection. I understand your hesitation to come to that conclusion though, because a lot of Nozick-style libertarian thought falls apart once you make this move.

7/7/2011 2:37:41 PM

I'm not a Nozick-style libertarian. In fact, I've been openly critical of his methodology.

Is behavior which improves my own personal well being moral? Not if I use force to achieve that end. Is behavior which improves well being of other humans on the aggregate moral? Again, not if I use force to achieve that end.

Connecting well being with morality is putting the horse before the carriage. Well being comes about as a result of voluntary association, but never by forcing individuals to engage in behavior against their will.

7/7/2011 3:01:53 PM

Quote :

"Even philosophy can be studied objectively. We know (you may not believe this) that everything that is the human mind is created by and contained within the physical brain, which can be studied objectively. We don't have a full understanding of the brain's physiology and how that relates to the states of the mind, but it's a relatively new science. Give it time."

Thats not philosophy, thats hard science. Endorphins (and other natural chemical reactions that create the physical sensation of pleasure) are an unmistakable message from nature: "Do these things".

7/7/2011 3:19:23 PM

Quote :

"Connecting well being with morality is putting the horse before the carriage. Well being comes about as a result of voluntary association, but never by forcing individuals to engage in behavior against their will."

I'm not certain that that's necessarily true. Raising children comes to mind.

Quote :

"Thats not philosophy, thats hard science. Endorphins (and other natural chemical reactions that create the physical sensation of pleasure) are an unmistakable message from nature: "Do these things"."

As we gain more understanding of the brain and how it relates to the mind-state, there will be much more than endorphins to go by. All human experience is a product of the physical brain.

[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 3:49 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2011 3:48:45 PM

Quote :

"I'm not a Nozick-style libertarian. In fact, I've been openly critical of his methodology."

Apologies, then. I tend to consider "taxation is theft" people to be direct intellectual heirs to him. Thanks for pointing out otherwise.

Quote :

"Is behavior which improves my own personal well being moral? Not if I use force to achieve that end. Is behavior which improves well being of other humans on the aggregate moral? Again, not if I use force to achieve that end."

These are opinions; you haven't provided an argument.

Quote :

"Connecting well being with morality is putting the horse before the carriage. Well being comes about as a result of voluntary association, but never by forcing individuals to engage in behavior against their will."

Really? Never? Also you don't consider degrees of coercion to be morally different? This is why I point to Nozick.

7/7/2011 3:54:46 PM

Quote :

"I'm not certain that that's necessarily true. Raising children comes to mind."

Fair enough, raising children is a bit of a different case.

Quote :

"Apologies, then. I tend to consider "taxation is theft" people to be direct intellectual heirs to him. Thanks for pointing out otherwise."

No, the concept that taxation is theft was around way before the 1970s. Taxation is not always theft, however. There are some people that don't mind paying taxes. There are others that don't like what their money goes towards (I'm a good example), and so they do not consent to the collection of taxes. The state is essentially a mafia requiring protection money, except in the U.S., the money is often used against the taxpayer or other peaceful individuals.

Quote :

"These are opinions; you haven't provided an argument."

When is it morally acceptable to utilize violence/threats of violence against someone that has not done the same? Could you provide a specific example?

Quote :

"Really? Never? Also you don't consider degrees of coercion to be morally different? This is why I point to Nozick."

Some examples are worse than others, obviously.

7/7/2011 4:40:08 PM

Quote :

"That we are not able to make absolute truth claims about issues subject to objective study does not mean that those issues become those truths do not exist."

The beauty of this sentence is that you can see exactly when I got up, mid-sentence, to take a piss. Ponder that. Night, all.

[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 5:38 PM. Reason : Perhaps beauty is the wrong word.]

Oh, fuck it.

Quote :

"When is it morally acceptable to utilize violence/threats of violence against someone that has not done the same? Could you provide a specific example?"

When the result of said coercion is a net gain for the happiness of those involved. The idea that objective morality, or utilitarianism, entails totalitarianism is a misnomer. If it turns out that a hefty degree of personal freedom is required for human flourishing, as we have every reason to believe is the case, then the libertarian-minded individual has absolutely nothing to fear. So stop worrying and enjoy your life.

[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 5:43 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2011 5:37:14 PM

Quote :

"When is it morally acceptable to utilize violence/threats of violence against someone that has not done the same? Could you provide a specific example?"

Well the reason why I object is not because I am a fan of authority (by any stretch of the imagination), but I imagine you would consider the collection of taxes "violence" or "the use of threats" because the result of not doing so is incarceration, and while I can see where you're coming from, I do not agree that they're fundamentally the same thing (even though they do share the sorts of properties you just described). That's why I hold out here; not because I'm down with rolling around forcing people into shit for the hell of it.

7/7/2011 8:14:28 PM

7/8/2011 10:27:38 AM

I'd do it if I didn't have family members that rely on me for their happiness too. Filling responsibilities makes me happy too.

7/8/2011 10:44:42 AM

^ aren't statements like that fairly malleable?

7/8/2011 10:51:36 AM

What do you mean by malleable? I was just voicing my personal opinion as it pertains to my personal life.

7/8/2011 10:57:33 AM

Quote :

"When the result of said coercion is a net gain for the happiness of those involved."

Since the measuring of happiness is subjective (not the indicators of happiness, which can be studied objectively as you say), this is not a useful rule, and it may actually lead to increased suffering when it backfires.

Quote :

"If it turns out that a hefty degree of personal freedom is required for human flourishing, as we have every reason to believe is the case, then the libertarian-minded individual has absolutely nothing to fear. So stop worrying and enjoy your life."

It's really quite the opposite. Just because personal freedom leads to human flourishing does not mean we will automatically get personal freedom. Liberty is something that has to be deliberately maintained, but if the machinations of the state are left unchecked, liberty can only be eroded over time.

Quote :

"Well the reason why I object is not because I am a fan of authority (by any stretch of the imagination), but I imagine you would consider the collection of taxes "violence" or "the use of threats" because the result of not doing so is incarceration, and while I can see where you're coming from, I do not agree that they're fundamentally the same thing (even though they do share the sorts of properties you just described). That's why I hold out here; not because I'm down with rolling around forcing people into shit for the hell of it."

I don't even agree that they're fundamentally the same thing. Taxing the people to provide for the common good (through police, national defense, infrastructure) is at least noble on the surface, even if it leads to problems. The most obvious problem is that a government that has control over police and military will tend to abuse its power since there's no one in a position to check them. Once the state has this power, you can guarantee that people with the right connections will receive unfair advantages.

7/8/2011 11:26:42 AM

^^

Neither skepticism or atheism gives any guidance to create such criteria for happiness. And even if you have your own personal ethics, skeptic philosophies dictates nothing but doubt in them.

Science and reason doesn't help you much either. For all the eloquent soliloquies of Sagan and Dawkins, the best you have is a dry evolutionary reason for you to be good to your family.

And rationalism certainly doesn't give you reason to have children or a family. People will have various accounts to offer regarding this, but let's be honest that it increases stress. Any other warm-fuzzes you have about it are explained at best and never justified. Many rational approaches would dictate that you, in fact, shouldn't reproduce.

--
A reason this is important is because it is in STARK contrast to religion.

[Edited on July 8, 2011 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ]

7/8/2011 11:42:08 AM

My philosophy isn't entirely described as Skepticism + Atheism. I'm also a Humanist and a Naturalist.

7/8/2011 11:44:20 AM

Well if you're comparing to religion, shouldn't those be the first things that you bring up?

7/8/2011 12:01:23 PM

I'm not certain that it matters. Naturalism necessarily follows Skepticism and Humanism is a preference following Atheism.

7/8/2011 12:07:48 PM

I don't think that follows. I think that the majority of atheists and agnostics are really apathists who pay very little attention to religion. To that group, I think that morals would best be described as unexplained or strictly a product of our social contracts.

Morality and life-purpose is simply not an argument for agnosticism, especially over religion. The merit of the philosophy is only that pesky fact that it's right.

If not, they why have the religious not yet given up on those problematic (to say the least) texts from ancient times?

7/8/2011 12:48:31 PM

That's why I said that Humanism was a preference.

It hasn't been proven conclusively that being good to other people is intrinsic in our species and necessary for survival, but I think that it's valid.

Nihilism is definitely a possibility for someone who concludes there is no objective "meaning" in life (not that I think a god even has the ability to confer such a thing to a human but I digress). I have just found value in empathy, and go with it.

Quote :

"Morality and life-purpose is simply not an argument for agnosticism, especially over religion. The merit of the philosophy is only that pesky fact that it's right."

I'm not arguing that it is. The only thing my morality gains from the lack of belief in the divine (and by extension an afterlife) is the understanding that humans have a finite amount of time on this planet, thereby increasing their importance in my esteem. Add empathy to this and you have Humanism.

Quote :

"If not, they why have the religious not yet given up on those problematic (to say the least) texts from ancient times?"

Tradition. Blind adherence to tradition and fear of no longer existing. I don't believe aaronburro's assertion that people are only good because God tells them to be. Morals certainly predate Christianity and while the Bible says slavery is fine and women are a subspecies we figured those out anyway.

[Edited on July 8, 2011 at 12:58 PM. Reason : .]

7/8/2011 12:57:36 PM

If the only thing keeping people civil is a fear of god then humanity has no hope and we should just give it up now.

personally i think its horseshit and agree with ^ that the god stuff is just tradition and ignorance carried over from previous generations.

7/8/2011 1:53:53 PM

The notion of supernatural consequencs (ie, Karma, Hell, dead people watch us etc) has a huge impact on the behavior of individuals, even amongst the non-religious. I think if you somehow erased that notion from people's minds, humanity would change drastically for the worse.

7/8/2011 2:39:51 PM

Regarding the statements about religion...

It's folly to define your views by the lack of belief in others' views. No matter how wrong religion is, it doesn't alleviate the burden of establishing moral criterion and reasons for living. Someday, I imagine this discussion can be had without detours to antiquated ideas that no one genuinely agrees with anyway.

Quote :

"I'm not arguing that it is. The only thing my morality gains from the lack of belief in the divine (and by extension an afterlife) is the understanding that humans have a finite amount of time on this planet, thereby increasing their importance in my esteem. Add empathy to this and you have Humanism."

I think that what's needed for a rational view of life is the redefinition of "self". Your self may be limited to a single lifetime with no continuance on either side of that, but to the extent that thoughts propagate further than our own minds we have some amount of shared collective consciousness.

One of the fun thought-experiments I've heard is to think of the internet as a brain. Each user is roughly equivalent to a neuron, and could, in fact, approach the number of neurons in the brain.. maybe not quite, but at least when taken as some larger structures.

I think the fact that we're not putting much effort into study of what creates consciousness in the human mind indicates that science isn't significantly concerned with these issues. Some artificial neural network research can come close eventually, but not soon. In general, many technologies that people associate with a "technological singularity" have philosophical implications going as far as the definition of "self".

I don't know, but I hope that there is something universal about empathy. I think it's likely unavoidable given the assumption of intelligent life. The ability to maintain a "theory of mind" is a landmark for definition of intelligence. That is, the ability to consider what another being is thinking, an ability that humans clearly possess to some degree. Again, I think this is largely unaddressed in the sciences. In general though, we don't have very good ways to study intelligent and conscious systems as a group to itself. I would like to think that any "theory of mind" leads to compassion of some type, regardless of it is put in practice to "do good" or not.

7/8/2011 2:42:20 PM

Quote :

"The notion of supernatural consequencs (ie, Karma, Hell, dead people watch us etc) has a huge impact on the behavior of individuals, even amongst the non-religious. I think if you somehow erased that notion from people's minds, humanity would change drastically for the worse."

It's also hard to argue against an inherent sense of morality.

7/8/2011 2:56:01 PM

Quote :

"The notion of supernatural consequencs (ie, Karma, Hell, dead people watch us etc) has a huge impact on the behavior of individuals, even amongst the non-religious. I think if you somehow erased that notion from people's minds, humanity would change drastically for the worse."

I disagree. I think you're thinking if everyone whom already believes in supernatural consequences suddenly and abruptly stopped believing in those consequences, they'd be immoral. Probably true.

I think however a gradual multi-generational change toward skepticism and secularism will allow morality to remain somewhat intact (and possibly even improved).

When I talk about a world without religion I don't mean overnight, all religious people become atheists. I managed to lose my religious faith and somehow still maintain morality. Other people can too. Then they teach their children and so forth (like how it happens now).

[Edited on July 8, 2011 at 3:07 PM. Reason : .]

7/8/2011 3:06:44 PM