If there is no God... [Archive]

Nausved

03-03-2008, 11:00 AM

It's because morality is not prescriptive. It is descriptive. Humans, through the course of evolution, have developed an intrinsic sense of right and wrong that is human-specific. These moral rules exist because they have furthered human survival and reproduction.

The moral rule against incest, for example, is clearly rooted in evolution; if you breed with close relatives, you will have fewer viable offspring. Thus those who exhibit a natural distaste for incest will be more reproductively successful, and that distaste will eventually spread throughout the population.

Much of morality is determined by the rules of game theory: if you don't hurt me, I won't hurt you, and if you help me, I'll help you. (This also explains why many people seem to lack moral caliber, and why the rest of us will make sacrifices to see justice done.)

It is also important to point out that there is a difference between innate morality (e.g., a distaste for harming others) and learned morality (e.g., piety). But the latter is still ultimately rooted in evolution, because learning ability and social harmony are so vital for human survival.

Richard0612

03-03-2008, 11:18 AM

Sorry to answer a question with another, but even if there is a God/gods, why does that alone make murder wrong or a human life worth more than that of an ant?

muguly

03-03-2008, 11:34 AM

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. is murder wrong? Why is Human life worth more than a bugs life?

To me, it depends. I believe in an eye for an eye so if you kill someone, you should die. But, if it's just an act of cold blooded murder, people do it because they can't see the value of another person being alive. They feel it is upon them to take that person out of this world and often don't think they did anything wrong. It's all a matter of perception: if I grew up with a distorted view of the value of life, then I am more likely to commit a voilent crime. Then there are crimes of passion: when a lover finds their spouse cheating and goes into a red hot rage and commits a murder suicide. We as a people have lowered the respect level of life. Too often we take for granted the things that are precious and innocent. We believe we are the alpha and omega and that's where the problem of devaluing human life begins.

muguly added to this post, 4 minutes and 40 seconds later...

Sorry to answer a question with another, but even if there is a God/gods, why does that alone make murder wrong or a human life worth more than that of an ant?

I think the answer to that might be that since there has been written text, the laws of man have always been passed down from the gods. There is no law or decree that is not from some form of god so when people think of morality the ultimately think of a higher power.

Richard0612

03-03-2008, 02:47 PM

The 'laws of man' may have originally been written down as they were supposedly passed down from a god, but that doesn't make the same true today [i.e. the laws stand on their own without a god].

vaguely dissatisfied

03-03-2008, 02:50 PM

Why is murder wrong? Why is Human life worth more than a bugs life?
Because those humans who value human life have deemed it so.

Antares

03-03-2008, 04:47 PM

Why is murder wrong? Why is Human life worth more than a bugs life?

Well, the excuses are endless.

-We're more complex
-We're more interesting
-We have feelings
-We're self-aware
-We're more intelligent
-We were created by God (Among others, just like we have a soul)
-We can make tools
-We're HUMAN. That's self-explanatory

And so the list goes. I'm under the impression that because we're human, we tend to favor ourselves... Ya know...

Murder is wrong because people don't want to be hurt. Often times, in early societies, they had agreements such as: "Leave me alone and I'll leave you be." and "If you kill another, you will be punished." I see it as a social contract and a defense mechanism that ensures the stability of the society. There's another divine rights in question: "As a living human being yourself, do you have the right to end my life?"

Rick D

03-03-2008, 07:35 PM

I kind of just got a little depressed because I think Nausved has a good explanation. On the other hand, knowledge of such questions about religion and the core of ethics is unattainable. However, even if there is a god, I can not think of a deity capable of creating the universe with infinite wisdom and still capable of punishing someone for their actions which were influenced by their surroundings. If some faiths are correct in assuming that god is within all of us and our surroundings, then every act we make (whether it be genocide or becoming a surgeon and donating our salaries to the poor) is equally divine.

ssfanatic

03-03-2008, 07:47 PM

Sorry to answer a question with another, but even if there is a God/gods, why does that alone make murder wrong or a human life worth more than that of an ant?
Bec humans have the ability to "fall" from salvation. I read an essay by C.S. Lewis, sorry i cant remember the title, that was on this topic. He says that humans are more important than that of an ant per say, bec we have the ability to defy God's will. No ant can sin, therefore they have no real power.
Or at least thats what the theologians say ;D

eMachine

03-03-2008, 09:36 PM

Sorry, the question doesn't make much sense to me...

Throughout history, gods have made murder right.

(Edit::: Or atleast it's been a commonly used excuse by men.)

blueback

03-03-2008, 10:39 PM

Why is murder wrong? Why is Human life worth more than a bugs life?

Because a human is aware of its own life. Killing a bug is the same as eating an apple. Technically it's "alive" but it doesn't know. Something like a dolphin or an ape is a bit more ambiguous, they might be slightly sentient, but until they learn how to show it human life is still more valuable.

pavman

03-03-2008, 11:11 PM

Well, the excuses are endless.

-We're more complex
-We're more interesting
-We have feelings
-We're self-aware
-We're more intelligent
-We were created by God (Among others, just like we have a soul)
-We can make tools
-We're HUMAN. That's self-explanatory

And so the list goes. I'm under the impression that because we're human, we tend to favor ourselves... Ya know...

Murder is wrong because people don't want to be hurt. Often times, in early societies, they had agreements such as: "Leave me alone and I'll leave you be." and "If you kill another, you will be punished." I see it as a social contract and a defense mechanism that ensures the stability of the society. There's another divine rights in question: "As a living human being yourself, do you have the right to end my life?"

Not that I don't agree with this position... just devil's advocate here.

If we look at history, specifically pre-Christian civilizations, we see that there were many instances of eye for an eye practiced that were relatively brutal.

One example:

Hammurabi's Code... an architect who builds a building and the building falls on someone's son... the punishment is that the architect's son is killed.

Hmm, now if an earthquake happened to make the building fall, and someone's son happens to be under it, does it make it right to kill the architect's son? According to the code, this is the just punishment.

Further, what differentiates our current situation from that of Hammurabi? Is it simply that we've had thousands of years to "evolve" to an idea that eye for an eye is bad? I doubt it, given the time-scales evolution requires. What then instead has influenced the change in our thinking?

And how far back should we look for brutality? Are not all civilizations at all times full of societies with unjust laws and of people who kill others for no real reason? Have there not been dictators, nay, tyrants, in the previous century that did exactly what the evolved modern man would think is unconscionable?!

Thus I posit: Murder is only wrong, from a neo-pagan perspective, because someone with authority and power says its wrong, and only in certain circumstances. When the state murders an innocent prisoner, the state is acting against this idea that murder is intrinsically wrong as no one wants to be murdered. If it were merely the idea that no one wants to be hurt, then society wouldn't execute prisoners and would make murder the last possible course of action, regardless of cost of rehabilitation.

It takes but a mere lack of vigilance in society to tip the scales, as we've seen in the 20th Century, from one of leave me alone I leave you alone to one of my way or the byway...

*steps out of Devil's Advocate suit*

If you want to argue it from an evolutionary stand-point, you might want to go more of the don't kill your own kind route, even if its not really applicable to man as man kills its own kind based on a number of factors that are often used to justify the murder, such as race, religion, ethnicity, contrary ideas, antisocial behavior, etc.

[b]pavman added to this post, 22 minutes and 49 seconds later...

...I read an essay by C.S. Lewis, sorry i cant remember the title...

I'll try to look this up for you.

No ant can sin, therefore they have no real power.

I've read this, I just don't remember the details. Not sure I agree with this.

First off, sin isn't power. If anything it might go something like: No ant can sin, therefore they cannot become separated from creation [I.e. separation from God].

If anything, the sin is what causes us to lose our power, as we throw our power of Free Will/to choose/rise above the base instinct away when we commit acts of mortal sin. The more we commit, the more it stacks up (not sure if this is logarithmic, linear, geometric, or exponential...never really thought of this angle before now...perhaps a budding INTP mathematician can come up with a theorem and some calculations for this sort of thing).

The more we stack the sins up, over time, the more our consciences weaken or fade, as if into a fog. Hence why its easier to repeat a sin again (e.g. divorce, pre-marital sex, lie, steal, murder, etc) after having already conceded to it once.

This is what Lewis, and what we, might call Man's nature after the fall. The solution is then to affirm to your conscience and yourself not to repeat previous sins. Repentance in a Christian sense is primarily viewed through some form of confession to someone else, coupled with some form of reparation for the sin (such as returning stolen money, or, if that's not possible, giving the stolen money to the poor).

Hence why repentance is such a big deal in Christianity, as it cleanses our psyche and sets us rightly again by removing the stack completely. However, the conscience is still in a weakened state.

This is where the practice of virtue and prayer come into play in the Christian world. By using virtue and prayer, we can overcome the negative effects associated with our repeated abuse of our conscience, and can strengthen not only our resolve to "sin no more," but also work to rebuild our conscience and to fortify it against future temptations, as is our fallen disposition, to re-commit the sin again (and other sins). The more this practice is perfected in us, the easier it is for us to perceive right and wrong in situations, and our consciences are then strengthened to act towards the right and avoid the wrong.

Antares

03-04-2008, 12:20 AM

If you want to argue it from an evolutionary stand-point, you might want to go more of the don't kill your own kind route, even if its not really applicable to man as man kills its own kind based on a number of factors that are often used to justify the murder, such as race, religion, ethnicity, contrary ideas, antisocial behavior, etc.

That's a good point. But it goes beyond 'dont kill our own'. It also extends to 'protect our own'. Evolution states that because a human would want to keep his genes going, he would protect those with similar genes, such as his brother, for instance. It's an instinct, and now called fraternal love... The instinct is quite strong indeed. Well, those who belong to another group are not always viewed as 'our own'. As some would say: "Keep to your own!" Meaning, do not commit into an interracial marriage. A person of different race, religion or ethnicity might as well not be 'our own'. Evolution certainly didn't stop sharks from eating other sharks, dolphin from attacking one another and mother buffalos from deserting their young 0___o Nor would it stop humans from having a go at each other if a meteorite produces a mushroom cloud effect.

ssfanatic

03-04-2008, 04:09 AM

Pavman.
The whole repentance thing is a bunch of shit that some pious person has thrown out there to keep the teenagers straight. Jesus died as an atonement for ALL sin NOW and FOREVER, therefore, we are free from sin always. Otherwise, we would never be able to interact with God. Its the new covenant, versus the old one where we stone people. Im not making this up, its in the Bible, just some people pick and choose what they teach.

And your right, sin is not power, but the power to sin is a power.

Homini Lupus

03-04-2008, 01:02 PM

Free from sin doesn't mean free to sin.

About evolution, we mustn't forget that evolution doesn't "awards" individuals but species. And humanity as a species has spread well, in spite of killing each other for wichever reason we found right.
Societies may be looked upon with the evolution theory glasses. A bit improper but it can explain a few things about the rules they created.

There are many theories about why men created societies. My favourite is that of hobbesian state of nature of "homo homini lupus". In that state nobody was sure of life. Since they had to sleep sooner or later it was neither the rule of the strongest, since another man or woman could come and kill him while sleeping. So people grouped together and created a ruler. Harsh rule, but it helped them live. And while a man has to sleep, a state doesn't.

That's it for short about the hobbesian state. It is just an image, but it helps to understand how rules were created.

ssfanatic

03-04-2008, 03:52 PM

Free from sin doesn't mean free to sin.

I never said that, i simply stated that if we ever had sin in us, then how could the perfect essence of purity and holiness live inside us? So we are forgiven before we sin. But if we truly understand the sacrifice and the grace that this requires, we will not have the desire to sin.

pavman

03-04-2008, 04:07 PM

I never said that, i simply stated that if we ever had sin in us, then how could the perfect essence of purity and holiness live inside us? So we are forgiven before we sin. But if we truly understand the sacrifice and the grace that this requires, we will not have the desire to sin.

I disagree.

I look to Christ's example in the Gospels regarding sin and repentance. He didn't say look you were already forgiven. He said you are forgiven, go and sin no more. This also brings up the concept of original sin and our fallen nature, as well as the topic of temptation and what is behind temptation (God, the Devil, our fallen nature, etc).

Not that I want to thread this out, but its pretty clear that we're to repent for our sins and confess our sins, as St. Paul says, to one another.

I'd go into it more, but its moving the thread, which I'm going to try to refrain from doing.... Hit me up on PM if you're interested in discussing this (or start a thread! :thumbsup:)

lordrrr

03-04-2008, 05:42 PM

Sorry to answer a question with another, but even if there is a God/gods, why does that alone make murder wrong or a human life worth more than that of an ant?

Well, the God I believe in made everything on Earth for man and made man dominant of all species except himself, so this is why it is acceptable (in a manner of speaking) to kill a bug and not acceptable to kill a man.

ssfanatic

03-04-2008, 07:29 PM

I disagree.

I look to Christ's example in the Gospels regarding sin and repentance. He didn't say look you were already forgiven. He said you are forgiven, go and sin no more. This also brings up the concept of original sin and our fallen nature, as well as the topic of temptation and what is behind temptation (God, the Devil, our fallen nature, etc).

Not that I want to thread this out, but its pretty clear that we're to repent for our sins and confess our sins, as St. Paul says, to one another.

I'd go into it more, but its moving the thread, which I'm going to try to refrain from doing.... Hit me up on PM if you're interested in discussing this (or start a thread! :thumbsup:)
In the gospels Jesus has not died for us yet. The old covenant was still in effect. But no. No use it making this a big deal. And i found that book. The Worlds Last Night is the name of the essay. The whole book is very good.

Zilal

03-05-2008, 06:03 PM

Why is murder wrong? Why is Human life worth more than a bugs life?

Heh... apparently the original poster's already been banned?

Anyway, I was going to say that my first thought was... "If there is a God, why is murder wrong?" (Is "because I say so" really an acceptable reason?) and "Is a human life worth more than a bug's life?

ssfanatic

03-05-2008, 08:05 PM

In the gospels Jesus has not died for us yet. The old covenant was still in effect. But no. No use it making this a big deal. And i found that book. The Worlds Last Night is the name of the essay. The whole book is very good.

Wow pavman. Im really sorry. Im just going to bite the bullet on this one...the gospels were written about Jesus, gosh what the hell was i thinking. I cant even explain how stupid taht was of me :embarassed:. But taking that into consideration, i have some scripture to hopefully redeme myself and answer your statements...
Romans 6:1-5
What shall we say then? Are we to (B)continue in sin so that grace may increase?

2(C)May it never be! How shall we who (D)died to sin still live in it?

3Or do you not know that all of us who have been (E)baptized into (F)Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?

4Therefore we have been (G)buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was (H)raised from the dead through the (I)glory of the Father, so we too might walk in (J)newness of life.

5For (K)if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,

Darkmist

03-05-2008, 08:17 PM

I shall now start a war.

A question for Christians. Why does the theme (writings) all god's creatures equate to only humans? If the bible is true, where does it state that human life is the only important life to god? Why with the ark in an ocean of whales, were not they accepted on the ark and if so how did they survive? Why would sea creatures need to abdandon the sea? Who ate what? Feces, illness? Why, why so many inconsistencies? Why are humans so much more important than other living entities? Come on people. Give me answers I can relate to. And no, I am not an Atheist. (sp?)

Homini Lupus

03-06-2008, 06:27 AM

Darkmist

03-06-2008, 08:42 AM

God created men at his own image. That means the most similar thing to god you can encounter on Earth is a human. And the fact humans are the most important part doesn't mean they are the only part deserving respect.

If you believe the bible as written and that mankind can know without a doubt what god looks like. Anyhow, I hear so many religious people talk about animals as unimportant, yet God told Noah to take two of each living thing on the ark which meant that God himself placed all his creations on equal footing. It seems that the bible is interpreted differently by everyone according to what they want it to say.

I'm not a believer in the bible BTW. But I do support everyone's right to believe whatever they want as long as they don't try to force me to to their beliefs.

As to why murder is wrong, if people killed each other off, we'd become extinct so it's probably an inate survival of the species thing.

pavman

03-06-2008, 09:09 AM

In the gospels Jesus has not died for us yet. The old covenant was still in effect. But no. No use it making this a big deal. And i found that book. The Worlds Last Night is the name of the essay. The whole book is very good.

Which book is it? He had a lot of essay books published. Just wondering so I can go and re-read the essay :thumbsup:

As for the new covenant...well, the Kingdom of God was at hand when Christ walked the earth, so its hard to say if the old covenant still existed, with the whole God outside of time thing.

Besides, Christ's divinity doesn't hinge on his death and resurrection. He knew ahead of time a great many things, including specifics of his own death; therefore, the pre-resurrection Christ, if I must call Him that, is still very relevant to how we should live our lives in the New Covenant. In fact, my reference was particularly to the way Christ handled sinners. He was forgiving, but it was based on repentance and turning away from sin (Ie turning back to God).

The timing is somewhat irrelevant, as the Gospels were written quite a number of years [between 60AD - 120AD, depending on what method was used to date the individual books] after the new covenant was begun.

As the authors wrote to specific audiences, rather than generally, they placed more emphasis on certain parts of Christ's ministry and less on other parts, as it pertained to the audience the author was attempting to address. This is why the Gospel of John is different than the other three, as it focused more on the Kingdom of God and was more allegorical and big picture than the others. This may have been influenced by the time-frame it was written in.

To say that the pre-resurrection Christ's teachings are not relevant is to deny the divinity of Christ, and, in some ways, smacks of arianism.

Homini Lupus

03-06-2008, 12:15 PM

If you believe the bible as written and that mankind can know without a doubt what god looks like.

Well, you asked for scriptures and believers.

I'm not sure the scriptures mean that man looks like God. I think the image is that of the soul (what you look like is quite relative when you are allmighty).

About not giving true respect to animal life I think is quite sick since it's God's creation as well. You don't waste what you're supposed to manage properly.

But I'm just a christian, not christianity. That's the way I think.

Vortex

03-08-2008, 02:07 PM

Why is murder wrong? Why is Human life worth more than a bugs life?

Technically, this question can be applied even with g(G)od(s) around.

If we assume God(s) does not exist, then there is no overarching set of higher order to the universe past natural laws (re: physics, chemistry, etc.etc.). In this world, morality is a social construct made by man, and therefore murder may or may not be acceptable depending on the social framework your operating out of.

From the universe's point of view, morality would not exist, and therefore nothing has any inherit value. Killing off an ant colony would have the same moral equivalence of genocide, rape, and plundering: zero.

In practice, the question of God based morality is actually moot. Nietzsche is right - we have long sense "killed" God. Even if God(s) exist, even if they have an overarching moral structure enforced throughout the universe - its so far unknowable to us, and therefore has no actual impact on this existence. We go along and create our own moral frameworks arbitrarily and attribute their rules to fundamental holy principles after the fact.

Whether were all going to "heaven" "hell", or your own personal after-life existence is impossible for us to determine, so we don't act off it. Religions come and go. Even if one is "right", it doesn't matter to our own existence. The best we can hope for is the creation of moral constructs that maximize the benefit of humanity - something no major religion has so far been willing to do.

I'm sure I'll be flamed to hell for this, but neh.

damianac

03-08-2008, 11:14 PM

I'm really surprised this link has lasted this long without this argument coming up. Someone almost got to it but stopped short.
The issue of morals brings in some serious questions of the existence of a god. Your question, If there is no God, then are there also no morals, assumes that god is the essences or the reason for morals. This has some serious implications.
If god created morals and decides what is and what isn't moral than morals are essentially arbitrary. In a hypothetical universe god could've decided that rape and murder are moral things and that helping eachother were unmoral. And then god is outside this moral code that he creates and is there more not moral, not all good, and not the god that everyone thinks they're worshiping. And lastly how can we really know what god wants us to do. How reliable are the rules our society has hand picked from the bible? Thankfully we've disregarded countless rules that no longer apply to our social norms.
On the other hand if god is bound by a higher, independent morality he is just like any other creature and doesn't deserve the title.
In it's unadulterated form from wikipedia it goes like this:
Is what is moral commanded by god because it is moral or is it moral because it is commanded by god?

So why not go around killing everyone and taking all of their property and raping all of the women and torturing all of the insects? Because we're social beings and to belong to an ingroup you need to abide by certain rules. If you don't you're expelled. We have very little concern about others groups and this is were almost all violence and immoral behavoir occurs. There and people in very impoverish, desperate situations. It's evolutionarily beneficial like several other people have said. God has nothing to do with it.

To be completely honest I'm terribly disappointed by this forum in general. Here I expected to find some "rational" individuals and all I find is this scripture quoting nonsense. Where is the evidence, the desire for truth. You could've plugged that question into google and found answers with more philosophical depth.

Homini Lupus

03-08-2008, 11:31 PM

Hail to the omniscience of google then. So that what is "common knowledge" becomes unquestionable Truth.

About being social creatures it doesn't answer the question. Even war is a social activity: two groups interact with each other weapons by hand. And even with societies working there's room for rape, killing and murder (outside the society it is socially acceptable, you just need to de-humanize the other, somehing wich has come very natural to europeans and americans in the past).
Every human deserves respect? I just have to take humanity away from you.

The search for truth? Looks like you already found the ultimate one, so why bother?

DeadSpace

03-09-2008, 05:32 AM

Morals are something within, religions attempt to teach those that don't have any, quite often they fail at it. Attempting to civilize humans, quell the primitive urges.
Some can find their own moral standards, tame the the cave dweller within...and become civilized. That has nothing to do with god(s). Many can't even recognise those base urges/emotions...therefore religion becomes a useful tool...albeit an oft ineffective one. Far too many do what they 'feel' is right...without ever examining why they do it.
Examination of your own motives, your own feelings, your own urges, dissecting them, judging them, helps you to create your own morality structure...no gods needed. Murder is a selfish, base act, primitive, most often caused by base emotions. Same as infidility, dishonesty, even someone who has to be right all the time is driven by a primitive urge...being right = survival, being wrong is non-survival at it's base. Think of a gazelle running from a lion...it makes a mistake it's toast. Being right is a base survival instinct. heh, once you start examining where inner urges, drives, emotions...even some intution comes from. It's an eye opener.

damianac

03-09-2008, 07:03 AM

Deadspace is right on.
If religion is the only reason you don't go around committing horrendous crimes against humanity then something is seriously wrong. Albert Einstein has a quote about this:
"If people are good only because they fear punishment and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

In regards to me already finding the ultimate truth, I would not say that I've found the ultimate truth but at least I've stepped outside the dogmatic views I was raised in and sought the truth that had truth to it. I was raised to truly fear hell and I still feel some of those fears but nothing within religion rings true to me.
I find it comical when people refer to searching for truth within the bible and your souls. The bible is one of the worst sources in the world, how can you trust something that was hand picked by a bunch of power hungry MEN. The bible is filled with inaccuracies and contradictions. Show me some truth that someone else hadn't figure out first. It's for uneducated ignorant people. If there is a god he will judge me on my actions not on whether or not I followed the bible. He might actually praise me for not listening to that propaganda. And why is only the bible mentioned here. What about the other holy text?
I don't need a god to behave in a socially appropriate way.

blueback

03-15-2008, 07:17 AM

Deadspace is right on.
If religion is the only reason you don't go around committing horrendous crimes against humanity then something is seriously wrong. Albert Einstein has a quote about this:
"If people are good only because they fear punishment and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

Why?

It sounds like you're comparing human motivations to some arbitrarily perfect standard that you invented on your own. That is called "comparing their worst to our best" and is a common debating mistake.

Every decision people make should be carried out rationally. That means "with reason." That means that you shouldn't do anything "just because." "Why should we not rape? Just because." is worse than "Why should we not rape? Because it is physical and mental abuse that increases the chances the rapee will never be happy again for the rest of their probably shorter life."

Pain and pleasure are the only things humans respond to. So the pain of punishment and the pleasure of reward are perfectly legitimate motivators. Religion invented and perpetuates the idea that it's not what you do, but why you do it that matters, which is absurd.

Nightelf

03-17-2008, 08:24 AM

If you belive in God or any higher being, than I would answer murder is forbidden because this being has obviously some (even if it is unknown for us) purpose with every human life.
This explanation fits for those, I think who deny the exisctence of such a being (like myself), because murder disturbs the order of things (life in general) as every individual is part of a system, a greater community. Around the individual there are different circles, and (s)he is in different relation with each circle. In the optimal case the person is valuable and necessary for each circle, but even if (s)he harms on of them, (s)he still can be valuable for an other. I am against capital punishment on the basis of all this.

vaguely dissatisfied

03-17-2008, 09:40 AM

I think people don't murder each other because they are evolutionarily geared to be repulsed by this act. If you look at sociopaths, they don't have strong emotional reactions to killing or cutting up or mutilating another person, however, most killers do have strong reactions and many have negative reactions. Most people, in general, cannot bring themselves to kill another human even when they believe the other person deserves to die. People can be taught to overcome this repulsion (like soldiers), but it is usually a hard-wired thing. And those who are exposed to human killing are usually adversely effected psychologically.

Antares

03-17-2008, 10:13 AM

Pain and pleasure are the only things humans respond to. So the pain of punishment and the pleasure of reward are perfectly legitimate motivators. Religion invented and perpetuates the idea that it's not what you do, but why you do it that matters, which is absurd.

While that can be true, but like Einstein, I believe that to be truly 'moral', one has to find it within him/herself to be 'good' (however you define that) without fear of being punished, just like I can refrain from stealing not because I fear the consequences, but because I know it violates the rights of the one stolen from and my moral integrity tells me that violation of others' rights is not allowed. Maybe it's just me, but I tend to stress moral integrity, and if we're moral because we're 'supervised', then we're indeed, quite a "sorry lot".

vaguely dissatisfied

03-17-2008, 10:31 AM

blueback

03-17-2008, 11:02 AM

Antares: I'm not sure you should be talking about your beliefs in a debate. There's no way to debate beliefs, they are beyond rational inquiry.

Besides, maybe humans are a sorry lot. If we are, what's wrong with that? We're still better than everything else on the planet. Even if we never achieve God-like nobility. . .maybe the pursuit of it is enough.

Nausved

03-17-2008, 08:47 PM

While that can be true, but like Einstein, I believe that to be truly 'moral', one has to find it within him/herself to be 'good' (however you define that) without fear of being punished, just like I can refrain from stealing not because I fear the consequences, but because I know it violates the rights of the one stolen from and my moral integrity tells me that violation of others' rights is not allowed. Maybe it's just me, but I tend to stress moral integrity, and if we're moral because we're 'supervised', then we're indeed, quite a "sorry lot".

Your line of thinking fits perfectly with the idea that morality is evolutionarily derived. Most humans hold to moral values by their very nature—not because they have some reason to or because it was somehow forced on them, but because it's built into their genes.

Morality is descriptive, not prescriptive. Even very young children have some sense of morality, though they have no philosophical or religious understanding to guide them. Philosophy and religion merely refine what we already know.

I honestly can't understand why people find theism so much more fulfilling than non-theism. If I suddenly discovered that God existed and that he were the source of our morality, I would feel very cheapened and very empty.

Antares

03-17-2008, 11:01 PM

blueback

03-18-2008, 07:42 AM

Because the only reason it's noble is that God wants you to be like him.

Capt57

03-20-2008, 07:44 AM

I honestly can't understand why people find theism so much more fulfilling than non-theism. If I suddenly discovered that God existed and that he were the source of our morality, I would feel very cheapened and very empty.

God is a superstition and our morality is based on genetics. Life is a sexually transmitted 100% fatal virus that may only appear to be more desirable than non life. One does not need to invoke the supernatural to explain the behavior of a dopey primate species i.e., Occam's razor. Your posts are dead on.

Victoria Silver

03-22-2008, 12:20 AM

Here's what works for me:

Since I am a conscious biological organism, I am capable of experiencing suffering, and I want to avoid it. Since I am, at least to some extent, a social animal with the capacity for empathy, the suffering of others causes me to suffer. Therefore, I arrive at this axiom:

Suffering is bad.

I can't "prove" this, but it seems obvious to me, just as "the will of God is good" or "Heaven is better than hell" may seem obvious to others.

From my basic axiom, and my observation of other living things, I arrive at this corollary:

The degree to which something should be regarded as the object of ethical consideration is directly proportional to its ability to experience suffering.

Rocks, the dead, and plants cannot experience anything, so they cannopt be the objects of ethical consideration. The degree to which animals should be treated as the objects of ethical consideration depends on how profoundly they can suffer, which is related to the complexity of their nervous systems.

This leaves a lot of room open for reasonable people to disagree about what the proper thing to do is in different situations; but I find it a useful place to start.

Nausved

03-22-2008, 10:31 AM

I agree with you, except for one part:

Rocks, the dead, and plants cannot experience anything, so they cannopt be the objects of ethical consideration. The degree to which animals should be treated as the objects of ethical consideration depends on how profoundly they can suffer, which is related to the complexity of their nervous systems.

Destruction of non-feeling entities can still cause suffering, albeit indirectly. Demolishing a historic building causes no suffering to the building, but it does cause some degree of suffering to those who enjoyed that building or who are troubled by the destruction of historical artifacts. It also causes some degree of suffering in that it is a waste of resources that could be put to better use.

Clearcutting and other environmental damage, as you can imagine, has a much more profound effect on suffering for animals and humans alike, though the trees themselves feel nothing.

As such, "harm" to such non-feeling entities should be taken into ethical consideration in relation to how (directly or indirectly) important they are, or might be, to feeling entities.

Victoria Silver

03-22-2008, 09:29 PM

You are absolutely correct, of course. What I failed to make clear was that (for example) cutting down a tree cannot cause suffering to the tree itself, but it might cause harm to others, depending on the situation. If you were the only being in the universe capable of suffering, you could not be unethical to anything.

(Whether is it possible to be unethical to oneself is an interesting question, about which I have not made up my mind. I suspect rather that one can be foolish in one's behavior to oneself, but not unethical. This does not include the harm you do to others by harming yourself, of course.)

Latte

03-22-2008, 09:41 PM

Why is murder wrong? Why is Human life worth more than a bugs life?

If there is a God (however you personally define it), what makes what he/she/it/whatever stating that something is wrong wrong? *add*(Assuming he/she/it/whatever really meant and said what the humans told the other humans he meant and said, assuming those humans really did tell those other humans that he/she/it/whatever said and meant what they claimed to have been told by he/she/it/whatever to the other humans).*/add, purposely difficult to read*

Truth based on authority? Truth that has to be accepted and not understood?

You seem to be assuming that some all powerful being would tell you something true and be right about it just because of the authority you view the being as having due to it's all powerfulness. It's akin to a child believing everything his parents say as absolute truth because his parents are his authority figures, just extended into adulthood and having an even greater magnitude due to greater perceived authority.

This might sound harsh or offensive or whatever, but this is a mix of neuroticism and primarily using flawed logic.

SmileyMan

03-23-2008, 01:03 PM

I have a Darwinian point of view: Morality is a product of evolution, just as religion is a by-product of an attribute that increases our survival ability in this world.

Example: "The stone is pointy because the bear uses it to scratch its back!" said the child - "Our world is as it is because God made it so!" said the bloody inquisitor. Assigning, sometimes false, attributes/meanings/objectives/etc. to things is critical to our survival. Humans strive to seek understanding of their surroundings, it's a critical objective in our survival.

Let me quote Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion, my favourite book: We now have four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or 'moral' towards each other. First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation: the repayment of favours given, and the giving of favours in 'anticipation' of payback. Follow on from this there is, third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness. And fourth, if Zahavi is right, there is the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising

I'm not going to bother much with the moral "Thou shalt not kill", because many people should be able to see the Darwinian logic behind it.

Blacklustre King

03-24-2008, 04:53 AM

God was a title used by idiots who thought they could control mankind via ultra elitism. Despite having died off, the followers of these people persist in their ignorance and frankly if “God” did not exist, this world would be far different and far better. One only needs to follow what the Christian and Catholic Churches have done over the last 2000 years and it is clear the repercussions of their actions are lasting and negative.

Such things as simple ignorance cannot atone for such crimes as such these “religions” have committed, even though by definition they match more closely cults then religions. Despite what kind of world this is now, I will always oppose, violently if necessary, the further spread of this corruption and unto the people I will bestow the cold and terrible truth, something religious people hide from behind their “God”.

Darwin was a eugenics freak and his purposed theorems are being proven wrong yearly. He was on the right track but his elitist way of thinking overrode his logicality. Darwin was one of the families who thought that inbreeding would make super babies; I’ll rest my case against them with that statement alone.

So what is the truth, I’ am pretty damned sure I have it figured out but for the sake of scrutiny I’ll keep that to myself. Not God, not Darwin, and not Aliens.

zibber

03-25-2008, 12:17 AM

Why is murder wrong? Why is Human life worth more than a bugs life?

If I may bypass the extensive discourse in this thread: it's not! To us it is, obviously, since unbridled murder (and theft, etc) make it hard to maintain any kind of stable community. When you step out of our box, there are no values.

ps:

God was a title used by idiots who thought they could control mankind via ultra elitism

Come now.. As unreligious as I am, I recognize that religions originally were formed naturally and gradually.

Antares

03-25-2008, 12:32 AM

If I may bypass the extensive discourse in this thread: it's not! To us it is, obviously, since unbridled murder (and theft, etc) make it hard to maintain any kind of stable community. When you step out of our box, there are no values.

Well, I don't know about you, but I have a belief in the fundamental rights of everyone, so murder would be taking someone elses right to live; thereby making it immoral. You can exercise your rights as long as 1. your rights override the others 2. it doesn't affect others if your rights are equal. But then again, I might be influenced by the idea of social contract, so... :thinking:

umop_3pisdn

03-25-2008, 12:40 AM

Objectively speaking, I don't think there is anything that makes a human life more valuable than an ant. That's if you hold some belief in nihilism, which I do, which in this case would be that there is no objective value to anything. There is no proof that human consciousness is of any objective value. Humans are more complex and thus a conglomeration of more resources. They are naturally a formation of a larger pattern, or posses a deeper complexity, but to state this deeper complexity is objectively of greater value.... isn't objective.

Naturally, though, we're all human, and prone to a subjective and constructed image of reality. We are not attuned to the objective, and we hold our own natural values via the nature of consciousness. Thus it is natural that we would value or exalt the virtues of consciousness. We can enjoy it, we can value ourselves, as we're naturally biased anyways. We only have our subjective models to go from, objectivity isn't anything attainable.

knitteratheart

03-25-2008, 01:29 AM

If feels like we're all jumping around the subject. The question is "If there is no God, then why is murder wrong" right? Shouldn't we first go into the question of the definition of "wrong"? What decides right and wrong? If there is no clear line, if there is no real definition, then there is no such thing as wrong. As such, whether there is a god or not is irrelivant.
Though on the flip side, people don't murder because they think it's "right" they do it because, (and I'm excluding those who accidentilly kill out of blind anger) they've measured the benifits and consequences and believe that killing is "better" or will "solve a situation".
Of course if you're asking "Why we shouldn't murder" then that's a whole different discussion, right?

zibber

03-25-2008, 01:54 AM

Well, I don't know about you, but I have a belief in the fundamental rights of everyone, so murder would be taking someone elses right to live; thereby making it immoral. You can exercise your rights as long as 1. your rights override the others 2. it doesn't affect others if your rights are equal. But then again, I might be influenced by the idea of social contract, so... :thinking:

Yeah, me too. I find murder, and even any (unwanted!) physical maltreatment, utterly respectless and immoral. Does the fact that the majority of humans agree with that (ignoring the matter of capital punishment for a second) make any of it wrong in an absolute sense, though? That's what religious people seem to claim.

Anyone else thinking "euthyphro", by the way?

Antares

03-25-2008, 02:16 AM

Does the fact that the majority of humans agree with that (ignoring the matter of capital punishment for a second) make any of it wrong in an absolute sense, though? That's what religious people seem to claim.

Wait; can you rephrase that? I didn't really understand what the religious people are claiming.

Smee

07-06-2012, 06:07 PM

Why is Human life worth more than a bugs life?
Humans perceive themselves as the dominant species, as of now. Insects are thought of as pests, not to mention that such beings do not have great thinking capacity (as is the case with a not-so-small number of humans). It comes naturally to humankind to kill what is considered more savage than them (which if why I am confused as to why people house cats and dogs but not cows and pigs).
Why is murder wrong?
I just answered a question like this so I won't write much...I don't believe murder is always wrong. Of course I've been contested on this view on numerous occasions, but my thoughts have hardly swayed. Avoid killing when you can, sure, but if you can kill one "bad" to save many "good" (I'd rather say pseudo-"good"), do so. Most people will not face this situation. I have yet to.

DesertKnight

07-06-2012, 06:22 PM

Human beings have an inherent and instinctive sense of what is right and wrong, religion does not equate morality (debate that all you like but it is true) and humans are perfectly capable of being moral and ethical without religion.

If you need a god to tell you that killing people is wrong, and if god is the only reason you don't kill or rape people; then religion is the very least of your worries.

Vermillion

07-06-2012, 06:48 PM

Why is murder wrong? Why is Human life worth more than a bugs life?

It isn't. Value is subjective and unique to the individual.

There is no right or wrong. Morality is a license to do whatever the fuck you want. Think of all the atrocities of humanity that where justified with "morality." It is a joke, total bullshit.

There is no right or wrong, only conflict of interest.

If you need a god to tell you that killing people is wrong, and if god is the only reason you don't kill or rape people; then religion is the very least of your worries.

Tell that to all the people who support the death penalty and prison rape. ANYTHING is justifiable via "morality." It's just easier when you can say that an all powerful being sanctions your own hypocrisy.

So then, what is the difference between killing someone you don't like and smashing a fly? Intent is the only difference. People feel the need to justify killing others, and use morality to do so. Since fly's can't question them, let alone retaliate, people see no need to justify killing a fly, like they needed no justification in killing other humans in times past under the right circumstances.

Watch National Geographic videos of animals killing and tearing each other apart. Then watch videos of humans doing the same to other humans. The only difference is that humans will most of the time try to justify their actions. The only nonhypocritial humans are the ones who kill and simply don't give a fuck.

Humans are animals. Humans kill other animals. Morality is a lie, a pathetic attempt to justify human nature. If you're going to kill or support killing, rape, torture, racism, bigotry or what-the-fuck-ever, don't try to justify it, just do it. And accept the consequences of your actions.

Human beings have an inherent and instinctive sense of what is right and wrong,

Horse shit. Right and wrong are subjective. Or are you going to tell me that George Bush feels bad about the nearly million civilians killed by his wars or that Al Quada feels bad about 9/11. They justify this behavior, to themselves under the guise of morality. Humans are animals, they ultimately have no sense of right and wrong beyond what benefits themselves and/or what they have been programmed by their environment to believe.

JC22

07-06-2012, 06:50 PM

Why is murder wrong?

Only subjectively.

Why is Human life worth more than a bugs life?

Who lied and told you that?

Tocsin

07-06-2012, 07:14 PM

There are dozens of social animals that have complex behaviors regarding conflict within the social group, including, in some cases, notions of restraint against agression.

There are notable exceptions, such as the infanticide initiated by a new alpha male; to eliminate the offspring of his predecessor and to bring the females back into estrus, as well as infanticide carried out between females to eliminate competing offspring. But for the most part, intrasocietal violence within a group is considered an abberation.

In terms of complex primates, whether this general disinclination regarding violence is from nature or nuture is debatable, but it certainly doesn't need to have a divine author.

I'm assuming no one is going to argue that the social structure of dog packs stems from some sort of "doggy ten commandments" issued to one of the prominent early dog patriarchs by god, or by some dog-god.

DesertKnight

07-06-2012, 07:18 PM

Tell that to all the people who support the death penalty and prison rape. ANYTHING is justifiable via "morality." It's just easier when you can say that an all powerful being sanctions your own hypocrisy.

So then, what is the difference between killing someone you don't like and smashing a fly? Intent is the only difference. People feel the need to justify killing others, and use morality to do so. Since fly's can't question them, let alone retaliate, people see no need to justify killing a fly, like they needed no justification in killing other humans in times past under the right circumstances.

Watch National Geographic videos of animals killing and tearing each other apart. Then watch videos of humans doing the same to other humans. The only difference is that humans will most of the time try to justify their actions. The only nonhypocritial humans are the ones who kill and simply don't give a fuck.

Humans are animals. Humans kill other animals. Morality is a lie, a pathetic attempt to justify human nature. If you're going to kill or support killing, rape, torture, racism, bigotry or what-the-fuck-ever, don't try to justify it, just do it. And accept the consequences of your actions.

Horse shit. Right and wrong are subjective. Or are you going to tell me that George Bush feels bad about the nearly million civilians killed by his wars or that Al Quada feels bad about 9/11. They justify this behavior, to themselves under the guise of morality. Humans are animals, they ultimately have no sense of right and wrong beyond what benefits themselves and/or what they have been programmed by their environment to believe.

I gotta stop posting in these ridiculous philosophical discussions. I don't like it when people try to attach grand intellectual ideals to extremely simple principles. The entire notion that everything is subjective, while true, is also ridiculous and pretentious. Just as the guise of morality can be used to justify anything so can the assertion that everything is subjective. I have a really high sense of justice myself, and I've been that way since childhood, no religion ever influenced that sense of right and wrong. To assert that I don't have a sense of morality is laughable, because I clearly do. My morality is subjective to me as everyone else' is subjective to them; however basic societal concepts (such as not killing people just because you feel like it) appeal and benefit humanity as a whole and therefore 'morality' is created.

The fact that people do immoral things under the auspice of morality does not undermine the actual idea of morality itself. Everything in this world is corruptible, everything, so when people do bad things they attach a label to said bad thing in order to absolve themselves of whatever guilt that bad thing might cause. That does not mean that whatever label they are using is a falsehood, only that it is being unjustly used.

That said, people are always going to kill people, no matter what you do or say about it; because people are as you put only animals. But to assert that the only thing keeping us from murdering each other in our sleep is a conflict of interest is a really conceited thing to say. Humans have a higher capacity for intelligence than animals, such as our unique ability to develop and acquire language (ours is different from apes, ants and dolphins after all), and in doing so we can also make more complicated and/or emotional decisions based on surrounding environmental factors.

I'll agree easily that a myriad of people do terrible unforgivable crimes in the name of justice and morality, but I can't agree that those concepts don't exist purely because of that.

Here is an article by the way on the idea of instinctive morality: Instinctive Morality (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

There is a lot more on this topic but that is a decent general description of the idea. I don't want to derail this thread though and if I keep going I'll likely do just that. I believe in right and wrong, I don't believe that non-sociopathic individuals need to be told what is right and what is wrong (that is to say I don't think religion or government is needed for that job); you disagree and that is fine I was only providing my opinion on the matter.

sunitaishot

07-07-2012, 09:20 AM

Social animals have rules.

Social animals use these rules to maintain order. This is all that is required for murder to be wrong.

There are also emotive reasons, which perhaps make up the bulk of it (emotivism may exist, but humans approach many things via emotion and feeling, so this doesn't invalidate the theory).

Paul Siraisi

07-07-2012, 08:34 PM

A human's life is worth more because you're a human. And your life is worth more to you than other humans' lives. Luckily for them, your life often depends on theirs. Why all this? Because the universe has a center in each of us. It's the nature of physics.

Typhon

07-07-2012, 09:25 PM

God shouldn't be the reason why you aren't shitty.

Megalomania

07-07-2012, 09:55 PM

....everything is permitted." - Dostoevsky

---------- Post added 07-08-2012 at 12:56 AM ----------

God shouldn't be the reason why you aren't shitty.

Nah, the existence of a meaningful morality is.

Disillusioned

07-08-2012, 12:29 AM

Why is murder wrong? Why is Human life worth more than a bugs life?

Read Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus. He basically answers this exact question.

'Why shouldn't one commit suicide in the face of an absurd world (one where no God or predetermined purpose exists)?'

N0c7urn3

07-08-2012, 05:24 AM

The simple answer is that it's because of evolution. Species that don't inherit emphatic instincts are not likely to last. They certainly won't form entire cultures. The more complex answer would have to do with the cultures that do form, because they will interact with the inherent biology. You learn pretty quick that you need to behave in certain ways to succeed. These ways usually involve not killing other people (at least not from in your 'inner circle'). Violence if it does occur, usually occurs when there is an extremely good reward for doing so (tribal warfare, for instance), which does preserve a bit of an aggressive streak in human beings (usually males). So, that would be why human beings in general don't' murder each other, but sometimes shit happens under certain scenarios.

Of course, that you aren't inclined to murder assumes that neither your biology (brain damage) nor your culture (faulty memes) is screwed up. Unfortunately, these things also do happen, and more or less do explain why people can end up as sociopaths or crazed killers.

You don't need God or gods to explain any facet of human behavior. Morality is no different.

Hariar

07-08-2012, 06:41 AM

Topic 4 years old, OP banned. I'm in.

I skimmed the thread; and while some posts were onto similar things, I think something is missing.

The questions asked in the OP are flawed, because they are not careful enough with definitions. There are at least two possible forms of morals:

objective morals
subjective morals

Objective morals are morals that are magically voven into the very existence itself somehow (just like gravity is a product of spacetime); or voven into the humans, or something like that. Subjective morals, on the other hand, are like any other subjective opinion: "this cake tastes good" and "this is morally wrong to do" are then statements belonging to the same category; they are subjective.

Humans by default usually believe in objective morals, while a great deal or most areligious people will adopt a view that is more subjective (even if not entirely subjective) as they grow older/think things through.

If one were to believe in objective morals, then OP's question would be answered by arguing that the morals were somehow voven into existence without a god.

If one does not believe in objective morals, then the nature of the topic changes radically; and there is possibly no 'final' answer, only different interpretations.

Conclusion: OP needs to clarify what exactly is (or should we say was) on his mind; such that we can know what exactly it is that we are supposed to debate. Most unfortunately though, OP is banned. :awesome: