Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?

[Rob C]

I can't say that I think either morality or moderate religious belief is truly about absolutes.

As a child I was subjected to two forms of religiously-run school: the first was a Catholic one, dependent upon French and Swiss priests. As my family and they were Europeans living within an Indian context, as with all expat communities we got to know each other quite well as people, not only as figureheads. I can't remember religious indoctrination from them at all, but I do remember a lot of friendship, and one priest even spent the time some afternoons after school to take me down to the beach and get me swimming. (I owe him. It later saved both myself and my wife.) They also held a large library of books of all types, detective yarns included, and it was through that resource that I picked up on Lemmy Caution, Slim Callaghan, Perry Mason, Hercule Poirot etc. etc. I was maybe nine years old at the time, and for most kids it was perhaps Superman, The Hulk or even The Beano held sway?

The educational limits of that local school exhausted, I was then shoved into a boarding school far away, run by American, Canadian, Australian and Kiwi missionaries. If the 'morality' of those people is reflected, today, in the mindset of the religious groupings in the States, God help the world. Has anyone imagined fundamental extremism to be peculiar to the Middle East, they are sadly, and most dangerously, mistaken. Those years in the latter establishment were the most unhappy and spiritually crippling of my life. I am surprised that I found the inner strength to rise above the experience and discover a private faith, any faith, of my own. In my mind, none of the established religions represents anything much more than degrees of power lust and the desire to exert mind control for a plethora of different, possibly unhealthy reasons. I think that, in truth, God is seriously misrepresented by most of these groups. That they may, however, have some positive spin-off consequences is a saving grace.

Whether there is a general acceptance of what may be a "standard issue" of morality perception is, well, difficult to say: one would have to know, intimately, far more people than I do in order to form an educated guess. FWIW, I suspect that people do, by and large, accept the morality behind the Sacred Ten, whether they actually do or do not live by those codes being something entirely else. Of course, that does mean that one has to exclude all extremists from any consensus of opinion or it will be distorted too far to make a broad, general sense of where we are today.

Rob C

[Torbjörn Tapani]

Huh!!!!
You really do need to get out more if you think that statement stands as written!

Whole political systems and government administrations have been built on or resulted in mass murder (we normally call it genocide).
The worst excesses of this phenomenon in history are all arguably recent events (within the last one hundred years or so).
Many of those crimes were perpetrated by societies who, outwardly anyway, represented societies that were and are supposedly technologically and socially advanced as opposed to, also supposedly, "savages" from Africa, South America, or South East Asia.
In every case large populations of individuals (tens of millions) gave (moral) support to heinous crimes, and at the time, and maybe even now, believed that their cause was just and moral.

And, certainly, in the case of Nazi Germany, it may have ended up as a dictatorship but it certainly did not start that way.
Hitler and the Nazi party were voted in by the majority of Germans and endorsed over several elections while Hitler was slowly building his power base until he got to the point where democratic choice no longer mattered. The Nazi's were never coy or evasive about what they about and they were elected on that basis.
They knew and any apologetic now that Hitler deceived Germany is false - they knew and they endorsed him.

Forget about individual psychopathic murderers the biggest murderers in history have always been politicians. And those mass murders have always been justified on a MORAL basis because without a moral basis they don't get the necessary support to do what they want (even outright dictatorships actually depend on mass support).
The fact that the moral argument can be shown to be deeply flawed (as it always can be) does not detract one iota from the fact that the individuals involved most often believed deeply in what they were doing and believed they were "right".

So, I have to call this conclusion for what it is: twaddle!

Tony Jay

Godwin. Maybe closer to home. In 2003 a coalition of western forces invaded Iraq leading to hundreds of thousands dead. Based on false evidence of WMD. Had the public known the WMD scare was just propaganda this would never have been possible. I would like to believe that anyway. Just give people the facts and I have some faith in humanity doing the right thing. Even the Nazis were trying to destroy evidence of their death camps before the end. They knew it was wrong.

[Tony Jay]

Godwin. Maybe closer to home. In 2003 a coalition of western forces invaded Iraq leading to hundreds of thousands dead. Based on false evidence of WMD. Had the public known the WMD scare was just propaganda this would never have been possible. I would like to believe that anyway. Just give people the facts and I have some faith in humanity doing the right thing. Even the Nazis were trying to destroy evidence of their death camps before the end. They knew it was wrong.

Actually fearing retribution is not the same thing as acknowledging moral wrongdoing.
(I have actually had to face the fear of retribution in the past for actually doing the right thing...)

As for the example of Iraq, did you mention this to agree or disagree with my point?

Tony Jay

[DeanChriss]

...
If everything is up to the individual, then EVERYTHING is fine. Everything.
...

I'm not sure. Maybe?

The first part of your sentence "If everything is up to the individual" means there is no overarching morality except by a consensus of individuals and the laws they create to force that consensus on everyone within their jurisdiction. If that is so, what is your basis for saying "then everything is fine"? I said, and you agreed, that if everything is up to the individual virtually nothing is "fine" relative to everyone and virtually everything is "fine" relative to someone. That directly proves the sentence you keep repeating "If everything is up to the individual, then EVERYTHING is fine" to be illogical and self contradictory. The first part of the sentence actually implies that EVERYTHING is fine with no one. You would be hard pressed to find any individual who believes that literally everything is "fine", much less a consensus of society. Fyodor Dostoevsky or not, that is simple logic.

[Torbjörn Tapani]

Actually fearing retribution is not the same thing as acknowledging moral wrongdoing.
(I have actually had to face the fear of retribution in the past for actually doing the right thing...)

As for the example of Iraq, did you mention this to agree or disagree with my point?

Tony Jay

It is an example of good people doing evil things. You will have to create a situation of us-or-them for moral people to kill others. You were willing to condemn all of germany. By that logic I would condemn the Bush-Blair axis of evil.

[Tony Jay]

It is an example of good people doing evil things. You will have to create a situation of us-or-them for moral people to kill others. You were willing to condemn all of germany. By that logic I would condemn the Bush-Blair axis of evil.

Actually it is an example of morally flawed people doing evil things.

[Torbjörn Tapani]

Actually it is an example of morally flawed people doing evil things.

Well sure. I could agree with that. Religious people with flawed morals.

[Tony Jay]

Well sure. I could agree with that. Religious people with flawed morals.

Or non-religious people with flawed morals.

[N80]

The first part of your sentence "If everything is up to the individual" means there is no overarching morality except by a consensus of individuals and the laws they create to force that consensus on everyone within their jurisdiction. If that is so, what is your basis for saying "then everything is fine"? I said, and you agreed, that if everything is up to the individual virtually nothing is "fine" relative to everyone and virtually everything is "fine" relative to someone. That directly proves the sentence you keep repeating "If everything is up to the individual, then EVERYTHING is fine" to be illogical and self contradictory. The first part of the sentence actually implies that EVERYTHING is fine with no one. You would be hard pressed to find any individual who believes that literally everything is "fine", much less a consensus of society. Fyodor Dostoevsky or not, that is simple logic.

I'm sorry Dean, but you logic does not follow. And you can push aside my quotes, many of them from brilliant atheist thinkers who agree with me. Most of the current popular atheist intellectuals agree with me and virtually all theist philosophers agree with me (even though I have not brought them in to the discussion). The very few atheists who try to argue your point are typically ones who defend atheism as a religion for which they serve as PR conduits. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

We keep saying over and over again that whole societies who thought themselves perfectly moral did and supported things that were obviously wrong without thinking themselves wrong in any way. Slavery was codified in the U.S. through the democratic process.

Your view that it would be hard to find an individual who believes that literally everything is fine is pointless for two reasons. first, most people don't ever consider the logical consistency of their belief structure. Second. while you might not find an individual who believes everything is permissible, you can EASILY find individuals who believe that things you find moral abhorrent to be absolutely okay and who feel themselves perfectly within their own moral framework. And  for every horrible deed of belief you can think of you can find an individual who holds it dear. That's the point. It is inescapable. If morality is up to the individual then any given thing can be permissible to him. If morality is up to popular ideals,  history has made it abundantly clear that this does not guarantee or even promote moral behavior.

You're in a logical corner that you can't fight your way out of. And it is really very simple. You can be a materialist and understand that everything is permitted as all of the great existentialist and atheist thinkers have concluded and be logically consistent. Or you can be a materialist and believe that there are moral absolutes that are guaranteed by popular assertion or individual choice and be logically inconsistent.

You just have to ask yourself how much it hurts to be consistent or inconsistent. It seems to matter to you.

[N80]

Religious people with flawed morals.

And there are plenty of them. A majority of them I'd say. I'm a religious person and get things wrong all the time. I don't think any of the, what, maybe two or three of us, who are pressing this point are claiming to be more moral than anyone else. We aren't and that is not the point.

And showing that a religious person has done something morally wrong does not necessarily impugn the religion and certainly does not weaken arguments for a creator. That would be like saying that Newton was wrong about gravity because he he stole chalk and erasers from the university.

[N80]

I can't say that I think either morality or moderateOf course, that does mean that one has to exclude all extremists from any consensus of opinion or it will be distorted too far to make a broad, general sense of where we are today.

Rob C

Well, yes and no. If you are wont to defend morality as nothing more than what any individual believes for himself then an extremist of any kind is the best example.

But yes, if you see morality to be a product of the collective wisdom of a nation or culture then extremism is a very poor example. That is why Nazi Germany is often invoked. It is a good example. We fail to consider Stalin and Mao because they sit outside of what most of us feel to be the western culture we identify with. But they are also good examples. So too is the French Revolution which might be the best example if it were not for the institution of chattel slavery in the U.S. It was a codified national institution. U.S. northerners like to hold themselves above that fray, but the north officially condoned slavery in the south until it no longer met their economic or military purposes. These are all reasonable examples of why morality by popular consensus is as weak as morality based on personal choice.

[Torbjörn Tapani]

It has to be said though.  Newton was just plain wrong about gravity.

[Rob C]

Well, yes and no. If you are wont to defend morality as nothing more than what any individual believes for himself then an extremist of any kind is the best example.

But yes, if you see morality to be a product of the collective wisdom of a nation or culture then extremism is a very poor example. That is why Nazi Germany is often invoked. It is a good example. We fail to consider Stalin and Mao because they sit outside of what most of us feel to be the western culture we identify with. But they are also good examples. So too is the French Revolution which might be the best example if it were not for the institution of chattel slavery in the U.S. It was a codified national institution. U.S. northerners like to hold themselves above that fray, but the north officially condoned slavery in the south until it no longer met their economic or military purposes. These are all reasonable examples of why morality by popular consensus is as weak as morality based on personal choice.

George, the quote you took from my post is somewhat garbled in the way it is represented in your reply... in fact, as a sentence, it doesn't make any sense at all. Something went amiss there!

Rob

[DeanChriss]

...
We keep saying over and over again that whole societies who thought themselves perfectly moral did and supported things that were obviously wrong without thinking themselves wrong in any way. Slavery was codified in the U.S. through the democratic process.

Absolutely true.

Your view that it would be hard to find an individual who believes that literally everything is fine is pointless for two reasons. first, most people don't ever consider the logical consistency of their belief structure.

An individual's belief structure, since it is dependent only on the individual, is whatever it is, logical or not.

Second. while you might not find an individual who believes everything is permissible, you can EASILY find individuals who believe that things you find moral abhorrent to be absolutely okay and who feel themselves perfectly within their own moral framework. And  for every horrible deed of belief you can think of you can find an individual who holds it dear. That's the point. It is inescapable. If morality is up to the individual then any given thing can be permissible to him. If morality is up to popular ideals,  history has made it abundantly clear that this does not guarantee or even promote moral behavior.

Absolutely true. IMO history has made it abundantly clear that nothing guarantees moral behavior.

You're in a logical corner that you can't fight your way out of. And it is really very simple. You can be a materialist and understand that everything is permitted as all of the great existentialist and atheist thinkers have concluded and be logically consistent. Or you can be a materialist and believe that there are moral absolutes that are guaranteed by popular assertion or individual choice and be logically inconsistent.

I'm not fighting but it seems that you are not understanding what I'm trying to convey. I'd rephrase the first part of your sentence above as "You can be a materialist and understand that everything is permitted by someone, or some group". I could agree completely with that and I think history confirms it. Try as I might I do not see any inconsistency there, it is what I have been saying all along, and I truly do not understand why you keep saying it is illogical. We may in fact be saying the same things with some disconnect that prevents one or the other of us from understanding. You consistently omit the basis for saying "everything is fine" in the sentence "If everything is up to the individual, then everything is fine". I would be in agreement with the sentence "If everything is up to the individual, then everything is fine according to at least one individual". You imply it is fine, period, implying "fine for everyone", which is not true. I think THAT may be the basis of our entire disagreement, but perhaps there is something else.

[Torbjörn Tapani]

I don't think any of the, what, maybe two or three of us, who are pressing this point are claiming to be more moral than anyone else. We aren't and that is not the point.

Really?

You can only have morals without God if you water down the meaning of the word 'moral'. Even that will not pass muster though.

That seems to be exactly what you are doing.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Let me make another thing clear. I have stated, with Sartre, Dostoevsky and many others, that without god all things are permissible. There is no moral basis and to those who are honest with themselves this prospect is horrifying. Not just because what this means about the real world but because it means each individual is utterly alone since he has to make his own morals.

So, the counterfactual argument must be that with God there must be a moral basis as written in the holy scriptures, correct?  If so, what then is the meaning of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the 30 years war, the enablers of the Holocaust (many of whom were good God fearing Christians), various genocides throughout the world all in the name of God (European colonization of Africa), the trans-Atlantic slave trade (just visit the new African-American museum that is about five blocks south of the White House in DC to see lots of good stuff that was carried out in the name of God), etc.  If this your moral God (how can there be any other?), I'm pretty glad that I'm an atheist with a moral code that can't possibly have in credit in your eyes as it is without God.  Maybe it's good to be a hypocrite. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

And, certainly, in the case of Nazi Germany, it may have ended up as a dictatorship but it certainly did not start that way.
Hitler and the Nazi party were voted in by the majority of Germans and endorsed over several elections while Hitler was slowly building his power base until he got to the point where democratic choice no longer mattered. The Nazi's were never coy or evasive about what they about and they were elected on that basis.
They knew and any apologetic now that Hitler deceived Germany is false - they knew and they endorsed him.

Perhaps you might want to re-read some German history.  They were not a majority party in the Reichstag but did hold the highest number of seats.  It was President von Hindenberg who appointed Hitler Chancellor at which point he was able to seize full power.  The last "free" election took place in March 1933 and even then NSDAP only won 43% of the popular vote.  I don't think this qualifies as a majority.  Perhaps there were 3-5 million fraudulent votes cast so in Hitler's mind it was a terrific majority.   Them's the facts.

[N80]

It's not horrifying at all. Some may even find it a relief. This is all about your own psyche, nothing more. Look East. Millions of people live quite happily with other beliefs which do not involve tying themselves in ghastly Abrahamic knots and going about in guilt and woe.

East? Like Pol Pot? Chairman Mao? Infant girls left to die because they are valueless? Governments that tell you how many children you may have? Not to mention the fact that your statement is pretty racists assuming happy hoards that do not worry about their place in the world or what is right and wrong.

If they are very lucky they may even never have heard of Jean Paul Sartre, an unpleasant piece of work if ever there was one.

Agreed. And one who could not live with his own convictions to boot.

Honestly, if Christianity is filling someone's head with "horror" then I would suggest walking away.

I never once suggested that Christianity was filling anyone's heads with horror and nor should it.

Give up on the burden of history's crazy old men crushing people with cruel and completely unrealistic expectations.

Agreed. But I'm not a materialist so I do not place any weight on men's expectations at all. Only a materialist would do so. Ironic, no?

Choose another way of living.

Odd advice from a materialist. "Find a better way, you say. What way, yours? Again, the irony.

Find a happier life.

Found it. Well, it found me.

The alleged horror is all inside your head and it will only keep you in chains for as long as you want it to.

First advice, now psychoanalysis. Wow. And really bad psychoanalysis too. But that's just the thing. There is no horror in my life.  And there is no logical inconsistency either. And there are definitely no chains. Just the opposite in fact. Complete freedom.

[N80]

It has to be said though.  Newton was just plain wrong about gravity.

Good point. Yes he was wrong. . But that won't keep you from using stairs will it?  So replace Newton with Einstein. Same point.

[N80]

George, the quote you took from my post is somewhat garbled in the way it is represented in your reply... in fact, as a sentence, it doesn't make any sense at all. Something went amiss there!

Rob

Sorry. When I said "you" I did not mean you, Rob, I meant the general you/we.