[untitled]
9 comments
That's interesting, but irrelevant. The question is not "what group of people is nicest," but "what are solid philosophical grounds for morality?" Ad hominem fallacies do not clarify the issue.
My point is that not only is it possible for atheists to behave in a moral way, but statistics suggests that atheists tend to act in a more moral way than average.
The question of solid philosophical grounds for morality does not concern me. I happen to believe that there are none. However I also am painfully aware that I am personally wired to be a moral being, and if I act against my own morality, I am very unhappy. However I have no basis for trying to convince anyone else that my morality is the correct one.
I could go on at length about this, but the short version is that after much thought I am a moral relativist. And moral relativism is not an easy position to take.
The question of solid philosophical grounds for morality does not concern me. I happen to believe that there are none. However I also am painfully aware that I am personally wired to be a moral being, and if I act against my own morality, I am very unhappy. However I have no basis for trying to convince anyone else that my morality is the correct one.
I could go on at length about this, but the short version is that after much thought I am a moral relativist. And moral relativism is not an easy position to take.
Great, now Hacker News is devolving into religious flame wars too. :'-(
STOP PROSELYTIZING ATHEISM ON HACKER NEWS!!!!! It's annoying!
STOP PROSELYTIZING ATHEISM ON HACKER NEWS!!!!! It's annoying!
Without God, you can have rules, conventions, and laws. You can have feelings of guilt or satisfaction.
What you can't have is true right and wrong. See if you agree with this statement: "Certain things, like murder and genocide, are simply wrong, even if individuals or even whole societies were to decide otherwise."
If you agree, you believe in objective morality. If not, you don't believe in morals at all. You believe in feelings or societal agreements or evolutionary advantage. But that's not the same thing as right and wrong.
What you can't have is true right and wrong. See if you agree with this statement: "Certain things, like murder and genocide, are simply wrong, even if individuals or even whole societies were to decide otherwise."
If you agree, you believe in objective morality. If not, you don't believe in morals at all. You believe in feelings or societal agreements or evolutionary advantage. But that's not the same thing as right and wrong.
P.S. I can't stand Bill O'Reilly - I think he's rude and annoying. So I'm not following the link. But I think this question is an interesting one.
This is by Frans de Waal who wrote the fascinating book "Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals". http://www.amazon.com/Good-Natured-Origins-Humans-Animals/dp...
I picked this book up for like $1 or something at the annual Penn State book sale (all books not sold are pulped) and it's been very influential for me.
He has a fascinating discussion on the "circle of empathy" and how it widens as our resources increase (from family unit, to tribe, clan, nation, world, and finally non-human animals...).
Great read!
I picked this book up for like $1 or something at the annual Penn State book sale (all books not sold are pulped) and it's been very influential for me.
He has a fascinating discussion on the "circle of empathy" and how it widens as our resources increase (from family unit, to tribe, clan, nation, world, and finally non-human animals...).
Great read!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
The footnotes are richer in information on this.
The footnotes are richer in information on this.
I am okay with a discussion on morality and God on HN, but I would have hoped for a more engaging source -- or, at least, just the naked YouTube link.
Yes, it's called the Golden Rule.
Without a god, there is still law, there is still government, and there is still intelligence. Intelligent people understand what is best for civilization, and what is not (like rape and murder). People of even higher intelligence know this without any delusional commandments or overseer.
Then there's the whole discussion about whether being good because you're afraid to be punished is actually being good at all. Related to this, wouldn't a person who honestly agrees with their actions be less likely to have a momentary deviation?
Yet somehow it is the conservative Christians who try to lecture the rest of us on morality, and frequently claim that atheists have no morality??
Pot. Kettle. Black.