Also, you gave no option for antitheists, how can we differentiate them from the nontheists?

No, why would that be the case? There's something called planning.

Is that how we want morality to be? Simply up to the individual to define? One might think that is okay with faith, but do we really want everyone determining their own rules of behavior? — Marchesk

Yes, that's the last stage of moral development, at least according to Kohlberg.

but there are well defined penalties for doing so — Marchesk

Don't confuse morality with legality. Laws enforce order, not the moral sense.

If left to my own devices, I would probably default to tribal mentality of duty, and to hell with strangers. — Marchesk

And would you call that morality?


The duty of the members of a society is to shape and reshape its standards, at least according to Plato.

The laws of nature? — TheMadFool

They're messy, they're not even fixed, they're not even clear.

By atheist I mean someone who says god doesn't exist. — TheMadFool

Then why do atheists exist? Why do the claim the higher rational ground? — TheMadFool

Why concern yourself with other fools?

I think I won't be too off the mark if I say that you think the universe arose out of chance. — TheMadFool

I'd argue that everything happens out of chance, that doesn't mean there's no cause and effect.

So, we now have two alternatives: God and Chance. — TheMadFool

That's nothing more than your personal assumption. What if I say the Universe came into being because of events happening in a possible Multiverse or whatever? Also doesn't your god have free will? Can't your god do creation by chance? Why couldn't it?

why is there diversity amongst humanity in terms of ideas, and why do we adhere so much to one or two particular ideas? — oranssi

I don't think that's how bias is defined: diverse ideas can be compatible and adherence to particular ideas can be uncontroversial.

So what makes these debates we have on forums of any value besides exposing our past experiences in indirect forms by talking about our opinions (or better said, preferences)? — oranssi

They're valuable because they promote the consolidation and exchange of ideas but I too am disgruntled that they don't produce any dependable conclusions. And I think this has to do with the very bias of the debaters that don't seek any other conclusion than the confirmation of their particular ideas.

The explanation I came up with is that by confining appreciation to certain aspects that life experience gives, we can relate to alikes. — oranssi

I'd argue that selfism is a biased worldview where you relate to none else.

Why are we all biased?
Am I biased? Perhaps, but I refuse to label myself that way because I do my best to unbias myself.

I have some principles to help me do that:
The one you should doubt and challenge the most is none other than yourself.
Seek your views to be challenged so that you can perfect your outlook.
(and plain and simple) Avoid extreme views.

I have even a method of removing bias:
take opposing worldviews egoism & altrusim
identify the common denominator action according to common interest
universalize and dynamize it action according to any common interest that proves greater at the time

But why are people generally biased?
Because people are generally immature, they don't have their own personal and specific viewpoints.

Think of the saying: I want to be part of something greater than myself!.

Think of kids, playing and choosing sides, ending up in stupid conflicts because of that, yet none forced them to spend time with each other. Why do they choose sides, why they even play? Think you're a kid: who are you? You think you know but you don't know how to express it. The only apparent choice you have is to define yourself by your relation with your group, the other kids you know, which is formed through interaction and bias because, as a kid, you're only able to judge appearences, unable so to reason beyond the immediate.

But still bias is not age specific so I blame ignorance of social dynamics. We no longer live in close-tight groups where everyone knows everyone, where all the preferences, needs, abilities and viewpoints are common knowledge, we brought about society which by its very nature confronts us with diverging and foreign ideologies, people find that overwhelming and so they fool themselves into thinking they know what's all about.

Every partisan thinks they knows exactly what the party, cause, person they support intends and why all the other opposing partisans are wrong, this strucks me everytime!
We have a clear agenda, we know what needs to be done, all the others are off the point!


Bias... It helps people cope with their own failings* when they shouldn't tolerate them!

But liberals and leftists also find values in national life that they wish to perpetuate. For instance, liberal-leftists tend to prefer that civil liberty principles be interpreted as generously as possible, rather than as restrictively as possible. — Bitter Crank

So liberals would prefer to expand values, rather than preserving them.

I'm sorry, I really don't get why you conflate patriotism with nationalism, which promotes national superiority. That's like conflating patriotism with globalism as well, like the left already does.

That's a serious allegation, please provide a basis for it.

I saw that but it doesn't make your poll valid. Other religion is still a religion, thus we can't have trustworthy results.

Your poll is faulty, you can't choose to skip the 2nd question. It should be dismissed altogether.

I don't get to have a specific question and my post read? Not cool.

Can we afford nationalism? — Bitter Crank

I thought this thread is about patriotism, like when you identify with a country and choose to serve it.

Is there any reason why actual leftists and liberals can't be as comfortable loving and serving their personal nation-state as the typical conservative? — Bitter Crank

The political yet again? Okay..
It's simple, liberalism is the opposite to conservatism and thus rejects all that is conservatism specific. Why is nationalism (?) specific to conservatism? Because it aims to preserve and perpetuate existing values, seems obvious to me.

I can't know what your atheists are thinking but I don't see a clean or tidy Universe anywhere. Not to mention that the nature of the room is unimportant, it can be messy but I'll always think of someone as long as it's a room, because a room is designed for humans, a universe, on the other hand,

is designed for life — TheMadFool

I don't see how this is true. Life is possible in the universe but maybe it's not an intended consequence.
Railways are designed for human transit, yet dogs use them to transit as well.
Wooden houses are designed for human living, yet fire uses them to spread itself.
I could just as easily claim that life is designed for the universe.

Don't you see order? Doesn't that imply something? — TheMadFool

Yes, a constant impulse and interconnection between things. But I don't see how that qualifies as God.

Seems to me you're the victim of your confirmation bias. If you see confirmation for your God then it's good enough for you. But your analogy is bad, stop trying to find fault with those that don't agree with it.

What inference do you draw from a clean room? — TheMadFool

That someone is experimenting on test subjects.

I think one can have any irrational belief as long as it doesn't affect their reasoning. I think even though there's no necessary context, Sapientia would agree to that much.

So you don't see filing a lawsuit against someone as a kind of condemning? Legality or not, seems to me we're concerning with the guilt of the person we're making a lawsuit against.

How is this:

I don't care if speculation is good enough for you. It's not good enough for any reasonable person. And you seem to have pulled the notion of absolute certainty from the same place you pulled the notion of coincidence — Sapientia

context for this:

Are you trolling or...? — Sapientia

?

You 1st dismissed his reasoning, then you addressed it anyway but the latter doesn't disprove the 1st.

Ah, forget it. This is not productive.

(a) stopping somebody from mugging an old person, and
(b) condemning the person for having done the mugging.

I would do (a) (if I had the courage) but usually not (b). — andrewk

So you would do prevention but not punishment? Is that what you're saying?

The difference is that NO-God is really much less satisfying speculation. — Thinker

Like any other speculation about a negative. I guess the choice would be between filling the position with a placeholder or leaving it vacant. It seems to me you chose the 1st, so I ask you what are the benefits of doing so? You said satisfaction but satisfaction derived from what?

Are you trolling or...? — Sapientia

Pooh-pooh.

For example, I have procedures on how I choose and how I prepare my meals because I can't eat the same food everytime but I also can't let any food spoil. Following procedures is dealing with constraints.

Does this lead to the conclusion that this general pattern of procedure and stimulation must be passed on and maintained? — schopenhauer1

If a procedure proved helpful, why not pass it on and maintain it? Seems to be the reasonable thing to do.

What are we passing this on for? — schopenhauer1

For the continuity of that which works.

You seem to claim that the necessity of following procedures is proof that living is drudgery, and I agree but I don't think living is the point in life but nourishing and cherishing what is of value to the particular individual. For some that's family, for others, love itself, it can even be the impossible dream.

Can you give me a reason why order is insufficient reason to deduce the existence of God? — TheMadFool

Order is not defined as resulting from the actions of a conscious agency.

I never got your argument of fallacious logic — Thinker

If there's no God, there's no proof for God's existence.
There's no proof for God's existence.
Therefore there's no God.
That's valid according to your fallacious logic.

If you need a more in-depth explanation, check an article on it.

according to you — TheMadFool

According to logic*. I don't have to come up with a counterargument if your argument is fallacious.

One thing is to be irrational, another to be fallacious or nonsensical.
Too bad this forum has no moderation.

What the OP first said is — Thinker

the all so evident order in our universe implies the existence of a conscious angency — TheMadFool

Which doesn't follow, it's just a non sequitur which affirms the consequent, a formal fallacy.

What the analogy asks is why the room is tidy? — Thinker

And it fallaciously concludes there's someone who made it so.

All I want to know is why is a tidy room evidence for a person's involvement while an ordered universe is not evidence for a God? — TheMadFool

It's evidence, but not proof, like you want to make it.

I'm talking about the bigger picture, and whether it would or would not make sense if certain elements were removed. Morality requires more than moral agents, it requires the right kind of environment and the right kind of activity. — Sapientia

So in layman terms: it depends.

Defnitely in a situation where you're acting against your moral dispositions just to acquiesce to social norms, you'd feel that you're acting immorally, yeah, so I'd agree there. — Terrapin Station

If I would know you well (enough), would I be able to know when you're acting immorally? Also, would all kinds of constraint that would prevent you from acting according to your moral dispositions be immoral?

I'm asking you these because I'm curious if you consider morality having any objective aspects. Maybe you're just saying that all ethics are subjective since we're choosing which to follow and which to dismiss.

If there's a conscious agency, then there's order.
There's order.
Therefore there's a conscious agency.

The conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premise; it can be false even when the premise is true. The only inference that can be made is: if there's no order then there's no conscious agency.
In layman terms: there could be order in the Universe for other reasons than the existence of God.

There's order in the universe. Conscious agencies are known to create order. So, the all so evident order in our universe implies the existence of a conscious angency — TheMadFool

Non sequitur: Affirming the consequent.

I find this analogy to be very cogent and persuasive — Thinker

Like any other sophism.

I have not heard any clear refutation yet — Thinker

It's a fallacy, it's not even worthy of consideration.

And right, there's no way to distinguish morality from preferences, because preferences--namely, about certain types of interpersonal behavior--are what morality is.

Someone "not staying true to their moral beliefs" is probably someone who has stated moral stances that aren't what they really feel. Maybe because they were kowtowing to social norms, for example. — Terrapin Station

So are you saying that you're always acting according to your moral beliefs (or according to what you really feel or your personal preferences, if you will), for example? If you're not, I'd argue that you're sometimes acting immorally, would you agree? Accounting for subjectivity or not, I think we should be able to come to a definite consensus at least about what immorality is.

How does that work? — Noble Dust

From all I know about the porn industry, there's nothing that confirms what you're claiming.

so cocaine is inherently addictive, — Agustino

Like any other activities or substances that give a rush of dopamine, e.g. extreme sports and sweets.

Sugar consumption, I'd argue, it's also a plague on civilized societies that people don't recognize as such, maybe because there's no stigma or illegality associated with it. What about caffeine? It has withdrawal symptoms, therefore it's also addictive! So everyone should definitely stop drinking sweet coffee, ever!

I don't see the point of your arguments, people generally know what's bad for them but they still do it.

Cthulhu

But wouldn't that reduce morality to subjectivity? — Noblosh

Yes, of course. That's what morality is. — Terrapin Station

Let me guess: says.. you! So, would you be so nice as to clarify that view for me?
Do you claim there's nothing in common between all versions of morality, subjective as they may be?
Nothing inherent to morality? No way to distinguish someone's morality from their preferences?
Would you agree, for example, that someone who doesn't stay true to their moral beliefs is immoral?

Being costly and unproductive is definitely a utilitarian perspective, so I don't see how you claim it's a meta-ethical one. — mcdoodle

Then take: wishing for criminals to suffer. Can that be considered immoral on its own? Maybe yes, because it lacks a good motivation. And what would that be? Maybe to add something of value to the world or to preserve what's of value. But I think the effects should act as a necessary reinforcement when judging the morality of something. Still, can anything that is predicted to be costly and unproductive ever be considered moral? That was what I meant.

because it acknowledges the immorality of killing an innocent person — jamalrob

But I don't get why killing an innocent would be an inherently immoral act. I get the feeling but even an innocent person can be in the way. Maybe there are higher priorities than preserving innocent lives, would any such priority also be inherently immoral? Would you kill someone innocent but condemned to death, to save other innocent lives? What about choosing who to live from 2 innocent but condemned to death persons, wouldn't that be indirect murder of the one you didn't choose?
Moral dilemmas can be unreliable, I know, but I think they can reveal our faulty moral assumptions.

But I don't think you're wrong, I just think you're not right. I don't even know what's the basis of your argument.

I think it's a win-win. — Noblosh

How? — Noble Dust

Simple, we all have our own beliefs reinforced by such an arrangement.

A brute fact is something that exists without explanation. — Marchesk

That would be challenge. You doubt that? You deny it? I'd argue that's challenging the very idea.
Face it, either you agree or disagree, with challenge you get the same result, it's a fact, a brute one!

I don't get it, you really want me to educate you on addiction and porn industry?
But I lack the required authority.

Still:

Can you sniff cocaine and not be addicted? — Agustino

The difference being? — Noble Dust

Are those rhetorical questions? If yes, you're doing it wrong.
Of course you can sniff and not get addicted, a sniff doesn't transform you in a heroine dependent, and the difference is the same one between being extorted and paying your debts.

You both have strong views on these topics and I'll respect that, I mean myself, and won't start a senseless fight. I think it's a win-win.

Ok, links of studies to drive home your point? — Noble Dust

If you think I'm wrong you should give me studies to refute my argument and drive home my ignorance.
I don't even get the perception that the porn industry is forceful but I get that it can be overbearing and inconsiderate. But one can argue that the software industry can be like that too.

So are addictions positive? Neutral? Negative? — Noble Dust

Addictions are defined as negative. Or at least that's how I understand this definition:

a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse consequences

What's the impetus for your idea here that porn actors are "free to change their jobs"? — Noble Dust

They do it because they choose to and in the same way they can quit.
They're not forced to do it more than any other wage labourer is.

What does virtually everything entail? — Noble Dust

Anything that gives a rush of dopamine and considering how variable and diverse human preferences are, any prefered activity can become an addiction, for example, exercising.

Yeah...definitely... — Noble Dust

Sure.

The stigma is inevitable. — Agustino

Why fight against addiction but not against stigma? Isn't addiction also inevitable?

it is impossible to dabble in porn and not be addicted. — Agustino

Untrue, where did you even get that idea from?

Yes, and we should fight against all addictions, including porn. — Agustino

Yes, but again, it's not as if porn is an addiction in itself.

No. — Agustino

Then maybe educate people if they themselves can't grasp that much. They need to know the downsides, clear facts, not the theory that it's wicked and deplorable and should be banned, that doesn't tell them much.

From its definition, it's intended to stimulate sexual excitement.

Wouldn't the world be a better place without the passions? — anonymous66

But what's their purpose? Are they some kind of anomaly? Don't they serve any function?

Large scale agreements occur in totalitarianism as well and yes, they're not pure coincidence but how are they morally valuable?


1. Porn actors are free to change their jobs and porn industry is legal and regulated, the stigma that comes with it is assumed and may be itself the problem.
2. People can make an addiction from virtually anything.
3. You mean: porn as an addiction has long-standing effects on the brain but so does any other addiction.
4. Isn't that such a naive and immature point of view anyway?

I'd hinge consent on ability, not age. — Terrapin Station

(Y)

Do they recognise her a person who makes legitimate (whether it be good or terrible) policy and has a role governing the country? — TheWillowOfDarkness

Maybe they're not interested in politics, ever thought of that? Objectification comes into play when someone's not recognized as a person which doesn't happen just because their approach and outlook are ignored and focus is on a part of their physical appearance. I'd argue that if you view politicians as just bunches of policies and political views, then you're objectifying them.

I'd have prefered for laws not to be made and implemented by the many (or by the many of the many's representatives) but by those responsible and up to the task, not influenced by any whim. Maybe the future of politics will be based on a political model dynamic enough to allow that or something similar.

As in the end does never justify the means? Or is this specific to arms trafficking?

Whether one action or another is moral is a matter of preferences that individuals have. Moral dilemmas prod you into thinking about your preferences in difficult situations, where the choices are between a rock and a hard place. That can help you clarify just what your preferences are and why. — Terrapin Station

But wouldn't that reduce morality to subjectivity? Wouldn't there be just personal ways, no moral ways, then?