User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 31

  1. #1
    Senior Member iNtrovert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    Ni
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/so
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    362

    Default If there is no god of any kind...

    If there is no god of any kind where do we (mankind) ascertain a means of objective morality and intrinsic value of human life?
    "Re-examine all that you have been told... dismiss that which insults your soul."_Walt Whitman

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iNtrovert View Post
    If there is no god of any kind where do we (mankind) ascertain a means of objective morality and intrinsic value of human life?
    I say that we become a divine civilization and destroy the world, make a new heaven out of it.

    Of course, there's many careful steps of action we must take if we are to ever even come close to realizing such a grand scheme.

    I think Carl Sagan has some good insights on what could make us great:

    We Humans Are Capable Of Greatness

  3. #3
    Infinite Bubble
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iNtrovert View Post
    If there is no god of any kind where do we (mankind) ascertain a means of objective morality and intrinsic value of human life?
    We already have objective morality. All we needed was a mixture of instinct and imagination.

    We also create our own value. And that's the greatest gift of all.

  4. #4
    Senior Member iNtrovert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    Ni
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/so
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    362

    Default

    If we create our own value then what if the value of others is at the expense of some other group of people. Where do we draw the line? I've searched myself and history for that matter to try to find a scenario where humanity itself come out better off in a word with this kind of world view. I've done so as honestly and sincerely as I know how. In every precedent and in every foreseeable possibility I have only found more suffering more hopelessness and injustice for someone. If I were to subscribe to a form of agnosticism I feel like I would have to overestimate the nature of mankind. I've concluded the only way I can identify myself as being in any form godless is to find an answer to my op outside of any known deity. I cannot. The closest I have come is the mear history of man yet even in that I have found the presance of a god.
    "Re-examine all that you have been told... dismiss that which insults your soul."_Walt Whitman

  5. #5
    Senior Member SensEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTp
    Posts
    213

    Default

    You've jumped to a forgone conclusion that mankind needs some sort of objective morality. Human history (and behavior) seems to demonstrate to me that morality is completely subjective, so I would say there is no need for mankind to ascertain any means of objective morality. We're managing quite well without any.

  6. #6
    Senior Member iNtrovert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    Ni
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/so
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    362

    Default

    I wouldn’t call the condition of the world or management of it well. I actually can’t even think of anytime throughout history where it (the world) could be thought to be well managed. (At least imo)

    My question is more so about the bases of what defines good and evil. (Good being that which is morally right. Evil defined as that which is morally wrong) If these are morally subjective terms then they are illusions. Hitler was no more good or evil than mother Theresa. If morality is all subjective and the value of human life is subject to be defined by any given individual murder, rape, torture ect are all good and evil. If these terms good, evil right and wrong at their core can be adequately defined and redefined on a whim by the 7 billion plus people on this planet then they might as well not exist. Undoubtedly my definition of good and evil will never align with that of everyone else.

    We can then look at morality as subjective through a democratic lenses. The good of the majority is good and the evil as defined by the majority is evil. Then what of the minority? Technically their view point is no more wrong or right there just happens to be less of them. Then where is true morality? I think that leads to nihilism. That would be the only conclusion I can draw.
    "Re-examine all that you have been told... dismiss that which insults your soul."_Walt Whitman

  7. #7
    Ratchet Ass Moon Fairy Comeback Girl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    2w3 sx/so
    Socionics
    yolo Ni
    Posts
    591

    Default

    Evolution. I don't think any species could keep existing without morality. Early humans would have all killed each other so they'd have all food and land left, so everyone would have been dead at some point.
    Ewww is the new sexy


    Hi! Ask me things, maybe I'll answer them! Just click here

    And here's my functions: Se-Te-Fi-Fe-Ni-Ti-Ne-Si


  8. #8
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Human beings (I assume all sentient beings) have a concept of good and experience something to the effect of happiness. This may seem to be subjective, but the process of your experiencing happiness is a physically real process (as are all things in your brain) and so in that sense it is objective. What's more, human beings are far more similar than they are different, and presumably other human beings have this capacity, too.

    From this we may not get an absolute morality, but we can get an objective one in so far as we communicate and we can perceive emotion, and have influence on each other. Empathy is the closest thing to an objective morality.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #9
    Infinite Bubble
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iNtrovert View Post
    If we create our own value then what if the value of others is at the expense of some other group of people. Where do we draw the line?
    That is one downside to freedom. But when I say "freedom", it isn't complete freedom. Thankfully we are maintained by ourselves. So there is a line. It is drawn by these instincts:

    1. I must protect myself so that my genes may be passed on.
    2. I must sustain the species as to continue survival.

    Usually they are healthily balanced. If they are not, you get wars and murderers.

    I've concluded the only way I can identify myself as being in any form godless is to find an answer to my op outside of any known deity. I cannot. The closest I have come is the mear history of man yet even in that I have found the presance of a god.
    The easy part is following the objective morality. I'm guessing that you're already doing that, unless you are a criminal of sorts. Finding your own value is much more difficult. The first part is to accept that there is (probably) no value to anything in itself. Then find what you love. Focus on it, and value it. Build your life upon it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SensEye View Post
    You've jumped to a forgone conclusion that mankind needs some sort of objective morality. Human history (and behavior) seems to demonstrate to me that morality is completely subjective, so I would say there is no need for mankind to ascertain any means of objective morality. We're managing quite well without any.
    Of course there's objective morality. I'd say morality is almost entirely objective. There are only small tweaks between one person and another. It's subjective in the fact that we make it up ourselves, but once it's established, then everyone follows the rules. If it was entirely subjective, we would've made ourselves extinct a long time ago.

  10. #10
    Senior Member iNtrovert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    Ni
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/so
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    362

    Default

    @Comeback Girl I feel to ground morals in evolution is irresponsible at this point. If we were to think of it this way we’d have a very Machiavellian sense of morality. Evil deeds are justified in times of scarcity or for the purpose of self-preservation. You could even say slavery is justified in early American history because if the slaves were freed the quality of life for white southerners was expected to dramatically decrease. Those that lynched and tortured blacks were not evil but they merely acted to ensure the quality of their lives and the preservation of their genes into the future.

    See I think the problem of morality grounded in evolution is evolution implies that people and animals cooperate to sustain their species. I have even heard it said that in group’s animals and in early humans tribes developed and each member had to act morally so that others would not see them as counterproductive to the group cause. For example one caveperson is trying to reach fruit in a tree so he pulls the branch but he find he needs someone else to grab the fruit for him as he cannot bend the branch and take the food at the same time. Another caveperson helps him and they split the fruit. You can find videos online of experiments done with monkeys and elephants and observation of this behavior in nature.

    My issue with this is what if the society is Nazi Germany. What if to be counterproductive of your “tribe” means to shelter the Jews form those that will place them in concentration camps and then starve them and or murder them by the thousands. That person that chose to go against the agenda of the predominate view of their society is immoral in terms of self-preservation and by law they have committed treason. So when there is nothing to be gained from an act of “morality” by the individual through the eyes of their community evolution cannot answer the question of why people are moral. When an act of morality is done despite the risk of your own detriment why do we chose to be moral? Better yet how do we define it?
    "Re-examine all that you have been told... dismiss that which insults your soul."_Walt Whitman

Similar Threads

  1. There is no God
    By swordpath in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 329
    Last Post: 03-19-2012, 01:53 PM
  2. What is this god of which you speak?
    By juggernaut in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 06-09-2009, 07:41 PM
  3. There is no such thing as personality.
    By ygolo in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-12-2009, 10:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO