|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 28, 2021 17:53:21 GMT -5
Sure, but I don't understand their reasoning for deciding that human suffering is bad...and why a 'dark, dingy place' is bad...maybe just because they don't like the experience of certain feelings and sensations? From a rational/logical point of view....a point of view that believes in a 'random' world, it strikes me as illogical that they would conclude that. "Pain bad". Pretty simple. Humanists can look at other humans, see their suffering, imagine what it would be like to suffer the same, and conclude it's a bad thing. In this sense, the humanists are right: you don't need God to have empathy. The point about randomness goes a bit deeper. The underlying belief system admits randomness as the way things are, a conclusion had by observation. But that's just one facet of reality. There's also a natural order to things - natural laws. These are entirely physical, determined by the "nature of the Universe", and subject to continual discovery by the ongoing process of science. That's the illogical bit though. Why not say instead that happiness is bad? Just because something feels good, why would that logically equate to it being morally good? And yes, I guess the extent of the 'randomness' would depend on their view of how 'fixed' they believe certain natural laws are. . |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 28, 2021 18:01:03 GMT -5
"Pain bad". Pretty simple. Humanists can look at other humans, see their suffering, imagine what it would be like to suffer the same, and conclude it's a bad thing. In this sense, the humanists are right: you don't need God to have empathy. The point about randomness goes a bit deeper. The underlying belief system admits randomness as the way things are, a conclusion had by observation. But that's just one facet of reality. There's also a natural order to things - natural laws. These are entirely physical, determined by the "nature of the Universe", and subject to continual discovery by the ongoing process of science. I don't think physical pain and existential suffering is related. Depends. Pain of all sorts - physical or otherwise - seems to have the potential to trigger all sorts of suffering. Existential, or otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 28, 2021 18:25:49 GMT -5
"Pain bad". Pretty simple. Humanists can look at other humans, see their suffering, imagine what it would be like to suffer the same, and conclude it's a bad thing. In this sense, the humanists are right: you don't need God to have empathy. The point about randomness goes a bit deeper. The underlying belief system admits randomness as the way things are, a conclusion had by observation. But that's just one facet of reality. There's also a natural order to things - natural laws. These are entirely physical, determined by the "nature of the Universe", and subject to continual discovery by the ongoing process of science. That's the illogical bit though. Why not say instead that happiness is bad? Just because something feels good, why would that logically equate to it being morally good? And yes, I guess the extent of the 'randomness' would depend on their view of how 'fixed' they believe certain natural laws are. . Just because "pain bad" is relative doesn't mean it's arbitrary or illogical. And "pain bad" is a simplification, just to illustrate the ethical basis of humanist morality. No system of either ethics or morality is simple in the practical application. Is it unethical or immoral to make someone unhappy? That depends. It's situational. Is it unethical or immoral to steal from someone? Yes, because it objectively causes damage to someone. To understand the distinction you have to first admit the underlying purpose for morality and ethics to begin with. Aside from an internal sense of right or wrong, there is the practicality of ordering how people relate to one another. Furthermore, causing happiness can be unethical or immoral if it ultimately causes more pain and suffering than happiness, like, say, a drug dealer or a prostitute. Obviously, systems of morality can vary quite a bit based on the underlying relative system of value. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 28, 2021 22:57:04 GMT -5
"Pain bad". Pretty simple. Humanists can look at other humans, see their suffering, imagine what it would be like to suffer the same, and conclude it's a bad thing. In this sense, the humanists are right: you don't need God to have empathy. The point about randomness goes a bit deeper. The underlying belief system admits randomness as the way things are, a conclusion had by observation. But that's just one facet of reality. There's also a natural order to things - natural laws. These are entirely physical, determined by the "nature of the Universe", and subject to continual discovery by the ongoing process of science. That's the illogical bit though. Why not say instead that happiness is bad? Just because something feels good, why would that logically equate to it being morally good? And yes, I guess the extent of the 'randomness' would depend on their view of how 'fixed' they believe certain natural laws are. . I believe that thoughts and emotions materialize into your reality. To have positive experiences you have to firstly have positive thoughts and emotions. Surely, you could try go through no-thoughts and/or no-emotions, but that doesn't work because you just switch your perception to a finer range of detection, where smaller stimuli will get into play. Morality, in my opinion, isn't an external standard, but it is whatever you perceive it to be. That doesn't mean it is what you want to be, because you can't fool your subconscious (by the way, subconscious is conscious, not unconscious). Happiness is good, because it yields good experiences into your life. Suffering is bad, because it yields more suffering into your life. There is nobody else to blame besides yourself, your ignorance. (by the way I used the generic "you" in all the instances above, the colloquial substitute for "one").  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 29, 2021 3:48:35 GMT -5
That's the illogical bit though. Why not say instead that happiness is bad? Just because something feels good, why would that logically equate to it being morally good? And yes, I guess the extent of the 'randomness' would depend on their view of how 'fixed' they believe certain natural laws are. . Just because "pain bad" is relative doesn't mean it's arbitrary or illogical. And "pain bad" is a simplification, just to illustrate the ethical basis of humanist morality. No system of either ethics or morality is simple in the practical application. Is it unethical or immoral to make someone unhappy? That depends. It's situational. Is it unethical or immoral to steal from someone? Yes, because it objectively causes damage to someone. To understand the distinction you have to first admit the underlying purpose for morality and ethics to begin with. Aside from an internal sense of right or wrong, there is the practicality of ordering how people relate to one another. Furthermore, causing happiness can be unethical or immoral if it ultimately causes more pain and suffering than happiness, like, say, a drug dealer or a prostitute. Obviously, systems of morality can vary quite a bit based on the underlying relative system of value. Yep, I understand the situational and contextual aspect, but I don't think I'm explaining clearly why I think their approach is illogical. For religious folks it's easy for me to see how/why their morality is formed. They accept the truth (and authority) of their religious text. It's really that simple. For spiritual folks it's also easy for me to see how their morality is formed...it varies somewhat, because spirituality is diverse, but in essence, their morality is born out of their insight into the 'true nature' of 'God/existence' (out of which they also then come to understand 'falsity' in a new way). For some, there's the additional consideration that Love is fundamental, and this too becomes a deep crux for their morality. In either case, morality stems from an understanding about what they consider to be true, and false. I think this dichotomy of true and false is at the core of all morality (as I'm defining it anyway). A baby is not yet able to form 'morality', and neither do animals have 'morality' (again, in the way I'm defining it). Morality requires a fairly high degree of rational capability. The atheist has a different understanding about they consider to be true and false. For them there is no transcendental truth, and so no transcendental root of morality. So what do they look to? Looking at nature is a tough one, because nature can be brutal, destructive, painful. Doesn't the black widow mate and then kill her mate? There's no clear morality in nature to be seen I don't think. The way I'm seeing it, the only honest way for an atheist to consider 'morality' is to say, 'there is no morality'. They are still free to say 'I like being happy', 'I don't like being in pain'. They are still free to say, 'I want that' or 'I don't want that'. The only other approach I can see for them to take to morality is to say (for example)....'I believe giving to charity to be a morally good thing'....'why?'.....'because I say so!' Though to be fair, I don't even like the idea and concept of 'morality' very much lol. For me...as for most of us on the forum...there is something more 'significant' going on. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 29, 2021 3:50:17 GMT -5
That's the illogical bit though. Why not say instead that happiness is bad? Just because something feels good, why would that logically equate to it being morally good? And yes, I guess the extent of the 'randomness' would depend on their view of how 'fixed' they believe certain natural laws are. . I believe that thoughts and emotions materialize into your reality. To have positive experiences you have to firstly have positive thoughts and emotions. Surely, you could try go through no-thoughts and/or no-emotions, but that doesn't work because you just switch your perception to a finer range of detection, where smaller stimuli will get into play. Morality, in my opinion, isn't an external standard, but it is whatever you perceive it to be. That doesn't mean it is what you want to be, because you can't fool your subconscious (by the way, subconscious is conscious, not unconscious). Happiness is good, because it yields good experiences into your life. Suffering is bad, because it yields more suffering into your life. There is nobody else to blame besides yourself, your ignorance. (by the way I used the generic "you" in all the instances above, the colloquial substitute for "one"). Cool. What do you mean by 'external standard' there? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 29, 2021 7:23:43 GMT -5
Just because "pain bad" is relative doesn't mean it's arbitrary or illogical. And "pain bad" is a simplification, just to illustrate the ethical basis of humanist morality. No system of either ethics or morality is simple in the practical application. Is it unethical or immoral to make someone unhappy? That depends. It's situational. Is it unethical or immoral to steal from someone? Yes, because it objectively causes damage to someone. To understand the distinction you have to first admit the underlying purpose for morality and ethics to begin with. Aside from an internal sense of right or wrong, there is the practicality of ordering how people relate to one another. Furthermore, causing happiness can be unethical or immoral if it ultimately causes more pain and suffering than happiness, like, say, a drug dealer or a prostitute. Obviously, systems of morality can vary quite a bit based on the underlying relative system of value. Yep, I understand the situational and contextual aspect, but I don't think I'm explaining clearly why I think their approach is illogical. For religious folks it's easy for me to see how/why their morality is formed. They accept the truth (and authority) of their religious text. It's really that simple. For spiritual folks it's also easy for me to see how their morality is formed...it varies somewhat, because spirituality is diverse, but in essence, their morality is born out of their insight into the 'true nature' of 'God/existence' (out of which they also then come to understand 'falsity' in a new way). For some, there's the additional consideration that Love is fundamental, and this too becomes a deep crux for their morality. In either case, morality stems from an understanding about what they consider to be true, and false. I think this dichotomy of true and false is at the core of all morality (as I'm defining it anyway). A baby is not yet able to form 'morality', and neither do animals have 'morality' (again, in the way I'm defining it). Morality requires a fairly high degree of rational capability. The atheist has a different understanding about they consider to be true and false. For them there is no transcendental truth, and so no transcendental root of morality. So what do they look to? Looking at nature is a tough one, because nature can be brutal, destructive, painful. Doesn't the black widow mate and then kill her mate? There's no clear morality in nature to be seen I don't think. The way I'm seeing it, the only honest way for an atheist to consider 'morality' is to say, 'there is no morality'. They are still free to say 'I like being happy', 'I don't like being in pain'. They are still free to say, 'I want that' or 'I don't want that'. The only other approach I can see for them to take to morality is to say (for example)....'I believe giving to charity to be a morally good thing'....'why?'.....'because I say so!' Though to be fair, I don't even like the idea and concept of 'morality' very much lol. For me...as for most of us on the forum...there is something more 'significant' going on. In terms that might sound familiar given the tone of these forums, it seems to me that the appearance of morality can emerge, after-the-fact, looking backward, as "right action" happens, in the moment. What you describe about the humanists here is known as "moral relativism", and another term that applies is utilitarian. It's easy to see the flaws in it, just as it's easy to see the flaw in any purported moral absolute. But even atheist's and Christian Fundamentalists are each in their own right our strawmen. People act, and we might evaluate and judge their actions. Sometimes there's really no choice about that. Sometimes it's really not necessary because of the extremity of those actions. Most of the time, though, it's really just not necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 29, 2021 11:17:11 GMT -5
I believe that thoughts and emotions materialize into your reality. To have positive experiences you have to firstly have positive thoughts and emotions. Surely, you could try go through no-thoughts and/or no-emotions, but that doesn't work because you just switch your perception to a finer range of detection, where smaller stimuli will get into play. Morality, in my opinion, isn't an external standard, but it is whatever you perceive it to be. That doesn't mean it is what you want to be, because you can't fool your subconscious (by the way, subconscious is conscious, not unconscious). Happiness is good, because it yields good experiences into your life. Suffering is bad, because it yields more suffering into your life. There is nobody else to blame besides yourself, your ignorance. (by the way I used the generic "you" in all the instances above, the colloquial substitute for "one"). Cool. What do you mean by 'external standard' there? Defined by somebody else. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 29, 2021 15:33:54 GMT -5
Just because "pain bad" is relative doesn't mean it's arbitrary or illogical. And "pain bad" is a simplification, just to illustrate the ethical basis of humanist morality. No system of either ethics or morality is simple in the practical application. Is it unethical or immoral to make someone unhappy? That depends. It's situational. Is it unethical or immoral to steal from someone? Yes, because it objectively causes damage to someone. To understand the distinction you have to first admit the underlying purpose for morality and ethics to begin with. Aside from an internal sense of right or wrong, there is the practicality of ordering how people relate to one another. Furthermore, causing happiness can be unethical or immoral if it ultimately causes more pain and suffering than happiness, like, say, a drug dealer or a prostitute. Obviously, systems of morality can vary quite a bit based on the underlying relative system of value. Yep, I understand the situational and contextual aspect, but I don't think I'm explaining clearly why I think their approach is illogical. For religious folks it's easy for me to see how/why their morality is formed. They accept the truth (and authority) of their religious text. It's really that simple. For spiritual folks it's also easy for me to see how their morality is formed...it varies somewhat, because spirituality is diverse, but in essence, their morality is born out of their insight into the 'true nature' of 'God/existence' (out of which they also then come to understand 'falsity' in a new way). For some, there's the additional consideration that Love is fundamental, and this too becomes a deep crux for their morality. In either case, morality stems from an understanding about what they consider to be true, and false. I think this dichotomy of true and false is at the core of all morality (as I'm defining it anyway). A baby is not yet able to form 'morality', and neither do animals have 'morality' (again, in the way I'm defining it). Morality requires a fairly high degree of rational capability. The atheist has a different understanding about they consider to be true and false. For them there is no transcendental truth, and so no transcendental root of morality. So what do they look to? Looking at nature is a tough one, because nature can be brutal, destructive, painful. Doesn't the black widow mate and then kill her mate? There's no clear morality in nature to be seen I don't think. The way I'm seeing it, the only honest way for an atheist to consider 'morality' is to say, 'there is no morality'. They are still free to say 'I like being happy', 'I don't like being in pain'. They are still free to say, 'I want that' or 'I don't want that'. The only other approach I can see for them to take to morality is to say (for example)....'I believe giving to charity to be a morally good thing'....'why?'.....'because I say so!' Though to be fair, I don't even like the idea and concept of 'morality' very much lol. For me...as for most of us on the forum...there is something more 'significant' going on. For an atheist I think it really could be as simple as the combination of the following three things; 1) What's determined to be good and bad is classified by the feelings it engenders and the effects thereof, so ranging between positive or negative, and really that all just seems to be something innate, something visceral. 2) The principle, 'do unto others as you would have done unto yourself', which is just an understanding and needn't be religious. 3) The principle, 'actions have consequences', another understanding and one which ties the first two together. So, do bad things, bad things are more likely to happen to you. I don't think anyone operates purely logically, and if you were working with those three, that might be enough. Now for a nihilist, it might be a bit trickier! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 30, 2021 7:53:16 GMT -5
Thanks for the comments on the atheism stuff, all good points, and my mind doesn't want to go there anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 30, 2021 10:50:50 GMT -5
Thanks for the comments on the atheism stuff, all good points, and my mind doesn't want to go there anymore. That's wisdom in action right there andy. People are going to believe what they believe .. sometimes you might be able to interest them into insight about those beliefs, but in terms of these notions that cut close to the bone, most people are going to unconsciously circle their head-wagons. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 30, 2021 12:03:05 GMT -5
Thanks for the comments on the atheism stuff, all good points, and my mind doesn't want to go there anymore. Yes, I can relate to that. |
|
