> the aberrant code is "less moral" on an > absolute scale, since it failed to > help that society survive.
One difficulty for me seems to be that this argument can only be applied in retrospect. I mean, if a society controls most of the world - i.e., the USSR in the 1950s - is that society the one that can make the rules?
On the other hand, I bet you'll respond that "no, because the USSR was killing millions of its own people, and so was deviating from the pattern of successful societies and was thus sowing the seeds of its own demise". Hm.
Yeah - brilliant isn't it ! It's almost as useful to me as the "God did it !" argument that some others use.
Seriously - it just seems too neat and tidy - I agree with you. If it were a real theory and not something I just made up on the spur of the moment, then maybe I could use it to make certain predictions. Unfortunately, since it's something that works on predicting what people and societies do (Hari Seldon anyone ?) then I doubt very much whether I could make such a thing work. It's not like Gravity you know:)
> allows for almost any logical argument > to be cut off at the pass
I know what you mean. Fossil evidence? God put 'em there. Carbon dating? God can change it. Big bang? God's method of creation. And so forth.
Yeah - very frustrating. Of course, I can gel with the Big Bang being the Creation. That doesn't bug me very much. It's the flipside - where people say that the *evidence* is being manipulated *after the fact* by God. New Earth Creationists are the worst at this. They can't accept the Earth being older than it implies it is in the Bible, so God has PLANTED the evidence that suggests that it is *just to fool Scientists* (or some other obscure reason that no self-respecting Deity would ever possess). I mean really.. Don't these people see that this pathetic ostrich-head-in-the-sand and fingers in the ears (I can't HEAR you nyah nyah) routine just makes all Christians look like fools ?
> my world view isn't tied to a belief > in the way morality comes about.
Well.... isn't it? I mean, isn't your world view tied to the belief that God did not promulgate a specific moral code?
Not really. That's currently my operating assumption. If I could find some evidence for a) the existence of a Deity and b) that He (it?) was the Christian God and c) that He imparted the moral code of the Bible...
then I'd promptly accept that.
And I'm serious. But I don't work on faith you see. That's my problem. I really don't have a vested interest in proving there is (are) no God(s). I figure if they're out there, then either they're content with the way things are or _any day now_ they're gonna come and shake things up. Either way, I don't see them caring one way or the other if I'm a believer, or they'd do something about that (if it were in their power to do so).
I don't ask for much - a simple visitation would work. I won't accept a string of weird coincidences or the Face of the Virgin Mary in a bowl of porridge. If God wasn't too busy to carry Elijah into heaven in a chariot of fire, then he could easily just take over every tv station on the planet and give the unbelievers something to talk about. He is, after all, omnipresent and omnipotent, right ? Oh, but lets not really get into that. I know there are a hundred different excuses for why He doesn't do these things. They're up there with the ones about why the death of innocent children in earthquakes seems to be a required part of His Eternal Unknowable Plan.
> if evidence comes around that shows you > that morality isn't God-given, then you > either have to rationalize the evidence, > or give up your belief.
Right, certainly, if Christianity were proved false, it would be false
Well that's interesting that you accept something and then require it to be proved false. I'm the other way around. Prove it true ! I say. But seriously, one annoying thing about most religions is that they *cannot* be proved false. How would one go about designing a way to test Christianity ? To falsify it ?
BTW - Do you see your religion as an All or Nothing kind of thing ? I ask this because there seems to be a trend in the modern Christian to sort of give and take parts of the religion... We've already discussed some of those examples (4th commandment etc)..
The reason this becomes important is "where does it end?". At what point does the set of beliefs as they have been changed and new evidence rationalized becomes something other than Christianity ?
That seems to be another strength of a scientific approach. It's compartmentalized. Just because one part is bad doesn't mean it all has to be wrong.
This is not to say that one cannot both be a Christian and a Scientist. They are by no means exclusive. I just can't stand those purported Scientists who manipulate evidence in light of their religious beliefs. These people are dangerous to Christians and Scientists.
> I can revise my ideas on *how morality > comes about*
Ah, OK, I see your point. Hm. Yup, you or I could reject Christianity (or Catholicism or whatever) and turn to atheism or secular humanism or Islam or some such. Of course, our belief or lack thereof wouldn't make any of those religions untrue.
Actually, while what you just said is also true, I think what I was trying to say was that my world view isn't tied to a belief in the way morality comes about. Sort of like science vs religion. Good science (and there's a lot of bad out there) doesn't care *what the theory is*, just how you arrive at it. So if I turn out to be completely wrong (and morality comes from somewhere else) then that doesn't really bother me. As long as the evidence is there, I can freely change my mind and still be consistent in my approach and beliefs.
On the other hand, if evidence comes around that shows you that morality isn't God-given, then you either have to rationalize the evidence, or give up your belief.
yeah I can see it now. First I have to get my hand into the right place. So I glance down to see if my hand is positioned over the camera. It's relatively easy to find a shift stick, but without that tactile reference point, I expect it might require a little bit of concentration to find the sweet spot. Then I wave my hand in a set of gestures that I have to concentrate to remember. Hmmm was it the circle to the left with the index finger ? Or was it the fist pump followed by the come hither wave ?
How is this any better than reaching over to the volume knob and twisting it ? What if the volume knob was on the steering wheel ?
apart from the expandability advantage (You have to re-wire knobs and dials to do different things - I expect you just need to upload a new gesture profile to get different responses with this system)... I really don't see that this will improve things all that much.
For some reason this bugs me... I don't know. Something about referring to a moral code as "useful". Sounds a bit Machiavellian - as if any moral code that resulted in the survival of the society was good.
Yeah - this sort of thinking does tend to feel a little uncomfortable. After all, we're talking about morality here - it's one of those things that is heavily ingrained in our psyches. It's wrapped around a lot of beliefs and is often a distillation of all those closely held values that we were brought up to hold dear. Add in a belief in the infallibility of the source of those values, and you have something that is entwined with our very identity. It's part of who we perceive ourselves to be. When you mess with that, it gets pretty uncomfortable, I can tell you.
Don't forget that the survival of the society has to be taken in context of competition with other societies as well. So you'll get moral codes which define "good" as something abhorrent to bigger, more functional societies... but those who adhere to these aberrant codes are likely to be eliminated by the bigger society. Survival of the fittest on a big scale. So I would argue that the aberrant code is "less moral" on an absolute scale, since it failed to help that society survive.
Although now we're back to defining "good", and it seems we're at "that which prolongs a society".
- and the individuals who are members of that society.
Yes.
Let me say, however, that I'm not certain I'm not missing something. I too, have a niggling feeling that there should be more to it than that. Partly because, if it were as simple as that, I'm sure a real philosopher would have coined it by now. So I'll have to do some more digging - see if I can rustle up some non-theistic arguments against this position. (I say non-theistic, not because I don't believe in God, or any God, (my beliefs are irrelevant) but because most theistic arguments seem to presuppose God's existance, which is an untestable assumption and allows for almost any logical argument to be cut off at the pass with "God said so").
The problem, though, is that a "desirable outcome" for one person is not necessarily desirable for another - i.e., what was desirable for the Nazis was not desirable for the Jews. I think this idea is called moral relativism, although I'm not sure. But you see the point.
Oh indeed I do. And philosophers have struggled with this one for centuries:)
I still think a decent operating benchmark is the one I first said, which included the individual and the society in the statement.. something along the lines "desirable outcome for the individual and the society".
Now this still doesn't deal with the aberrant society. If you judge the Nazis only by their actions, eliminating those individuals who were acting out of self-preservation (disobeying orders can get you shot, you know) and those who were 5th columnists (working against the Nazis from inside their own organization), you're left with a bunch of maniacs who believed that annihilating the Jews was the morally correct thing to do (lets assume).
The key question is "Were they right?" Moral relativism says "sure.. why not?" Their morals are as good as ours, so yeah..
But the key missing ingredient is that their moral stance ultimately did harm to their society and individuals within it.. (even if we discount the Jews who obviously weren't considered *part* of the society in question). By taking a genocidal, aggressive expansionist approach, the Nazis caused a situation where other societies cooperated in their destruction. > The distinction between your stance and > mine, is that I can revise mine.
That's precisely the point we are working on, I think. Can we change what is right and wrong as we see fit?
No - you misunderstand. I meant that I can revise my ideas on *how morality comes about*. That's a separate issue from revising my actual moral code (which I can do as well, but wasn't what I was getting at)
If I decided that mentally handicapped people were not fit to live, would I be right? I would have to say no - because it would fail the test of "desirable outcome for the individual and society". You might find it desirable, but the handicapped person would not. There could be arguments either way for the welfare of a society which eliminates mental deficiency. In the end, I think it would possibly be harmful to the society, but I can't prove that.
but again, we're back to that test of mine..
I have to say (as an aside) - the best part of this discussion is trying to come up with a reason why my test is useful... Hmm. I need to read some more philosophy and history I think.
I hear you, and that's a good point about being responsible for thinking about things. I certainly don't want to abdicate that responsibility. Nor do you sound like you have:) (If it makes any difference, I had faith in you LOL)
I understand that there is comfort in believing that a higher (smarter, infallible) being has determined what is right and wrong. It allows one to say "Hey - look, in these sticky moral and ethical situations, if I can't work out for myself what is the obvious answer, I can fall back on what God teaches, because I know he's always right, so I don't have to worry about doing the wrong thing." I can see that. Unfortunately, this works best if the teachings of God are always clear and cover every situation. Some believe that they do, but I've found in practice that for every positive thing that is said in the Bible, there's something quite nasty hidden away there that harkens back to a time when it was moral to own slaves and sacrifice animals (and ones only son, Isaac) etc.
I think the evidence agrees with you - that is, societies that follow a certain moral code will tend to survive. I think that's because societies that follow moral codes that oppose God's law are by definition bound to have problems. Just like if someone doesn't believe in gravity, that's OK - but they should stay away from high places:-)
Interesting point of view. I have a couple of questions.. what of those societies which have never heard of God and yet get along fine with each other (Kalahari tribesmen etc)? What of those who have heard of God, but still choose to follow other belief systems and get along fine ? What of those who do profess to follow the teachings of Judeo-Christianity and yet self-destruct or war with other "sects" who still nominally believe the same things (can we say "the Crusades", "Jihad" ?)
If the Word was so useful as a teaching, wouldn't it mean that the most successful societies (internally, and externally) would be those who followed it to the letter and the spirit?
I don't think that looking at history, you can really say this.
> can we really say they are a moral Christian True, as the Bible says, "faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead".
Good point... BTW - IIRC one of the priests in my life used to teach that you can sin in thought.. I wonder, is that true as well ? For example, "covetting" from the 10 commandments seems to imply mere thought. If I am zealously desirous of my neighbours wife (or slave, or house, or other chattel.. and no , I don't think it's moral to treat women as objects, or own slaves, but it seems that it's OK by God.. but that's another argument).... if I am covetting my neighbours wife, then I've sinned in thought. Yet if I profess faith, and yet perform no virtuous acts, can I be truly said to have Faith ? But I digress...
> how many people now work on the Sabbath
Hm. True, although you could make a decent argument to the effect of "we're saved by grace not by works". Also, if a Christian sins, that does not invalidate Christianity. Nonetheless, your point is well taken.
I'm not familiar with the "saved by grace not by works" argument... could you spell it out for me ? I agree that if someone breaks the tenets of their moral code, that doesn't invalidate the code... but what if the majority of people who claim to follow that code have modified it to exclude the parts that they find irrelevant? What if it's always the same part ? I guess what I was trying to show with that particular example is that many Christians in "first world" countries no longer consider working on the Sabbath the *mortal sin* that it once was. Most of them wouldn't even consider it a sin at all. These people have *modified* their moral code to allow as acceptable an act that was once immoral. How many preachers would castigate their congregations for allowin
Every time you try to operate one of these weird black controls that are labelled in black on a black background, a little black light lights up black to let you know you've done it.
It's not "my code" in the sense that I invented it, though. I didn't invent it, nor can I change it. Rather freeing, actually.
yeah - I did mean "yours" as in "the moral code you ascribe to", rather than "the moral code you invented". But on your other points - Part of what I was getting at was that the moral code which you ascribe to has been reinterpretted over the years (by others, if not you). There are numerous examples of what was immoral (and not merely socially unacceptable) becoming no longer immoral, and in some cases actually moral. Admittedly most of these were "fringe" rather than "core" elements of the code.
As for being "freed" because you cannot change the moral code... is that because you are absolved of any responsibility for your actions as long as you follow that code ? If that is so, I'm sorry to hear it. Why? I hear you ask. Because to me that is giving up the responsibility for thinking about things - one of our greatest gifts.
I agree that "thinking it is right doesn't make it so", but at the same time I was making a case for reasons (other than "God said so") why something is "absolutely" right or wrong.. and that has to do with observable phenomena, such as the capacity for an individual or group of individuals to survive when they act according to a set of moral beliefs.
Can we make statements like "foo is really bad" ? Again, don't make the mistake that I'm a pure Relativist (I was swayed by Cultural Relativist arguments for a long time, but I'm over it:) ). We _can_ say that "foo is really bad" if foo can be shown to cause actual harm to individuals or their society. I guess the next question is "why is causing harm bad?" And there you have me. That's irreducible, because harm is defined in terms very similar to "bad". Hmm.
As for the moral view of America (for example), that's why I suggested that the true moral position of an individual can only be observed through their actions. Someone may profess to be a great Christian, going to church every sunday etc. But if that person goes around killing people, can we really say they are a moral Christian ? For a less extreme example, if you ask many Christians whether they follow the Bible, they will answer "yes, to the best of my ability". But if you observe their actions, you can find many places in the Bible which are ignored as required. If you ask them why they don't do "foo" as it says in the Bible, they might say something like "that's not relevant in this day and age". It's the little things like that which suggest to me that even the Christian moral code has changed over the centuries. The basics are pretty clear (Don't kill people), but how many people now work on the Sabbath ? That's a pretty big breach of the 4th commandment, isn't it ? Lets not even get into the exceptions to things that are allowed in the Bible, but which would be proscribed in our society.
I guess I just don't see the necessity of an external entity/force to impart a moral code, when I can see that morals are really just the set of rules under which people operate to get along with each other. In the same way that organisms have evolved into cooperative ecological niches physically, social animals may have evolved rulesets to govern their interpersonal behaviour. It's no doubt easier to change ones mind than it is to change ones ecological niche, however. But it's surprising how rarely people do. Is that because its advantageous to us as individuals and as a species to think homogenously (to better function as a group) - with a few "mutations" every so often so that our "mental DNA" doesn't ossify ? Anyway - now I'm raving.:)
Ahh - but what are you really measuring "that which is right" against here ? Isn't it your own moral code ? Again, the circular argument.
As for those horrendous acts of societies in the past (and present) : How many of those people fought for what they thought was right ? Does the fact that we disagree with them (and won the war) make them wrong? (Oh I know - I'll be labelled a Nazi next... don't get me wrong. I don't think what they did was right at all... but not because God told me, but because Nazism wasn't good for their society. Same position I take on human sacrifice - it's not good for the individuals, nor the society.)
Yes, I feel that racism is bad. Why do I feel that way ? Possibly because I've grown past my grandfathers social mores, but also because I have observed that racism and other forms of discrimination have deleterious effects on a society which contains heterogeneous racial mixes.
As for Americas monopoly.. sorry if that sounded like an attack on America. Far from it - it was merely an example of differing moral codes. You've graciously provided me with another - one which hasn't changed much, but is more lax now than it has ever been in the past.
re: observed morality Is there any other way to determine the overall moral views of a society than to observe their actions ? I can enquire as to the moral compass of a thousand individuals within a society, and tabulate their answers, but if they habitually act counter to that professed moral code, can I truly take their word for it ?
RE: Modesty. If one were to be raised in a village in the Amazon, would one still require head to toe covering ?
Don't forget the Spear of Longinus (the spear that pierced Jesus' side when he was on the cross... apparently allows the possessor to conquer the world or something)
It was supposed to be an obsession of Hitlers too.
Exactly, and so it could be changed at will - it would be more of a weathervane than a moral code.
Firstly, a moral code is a social thing. You can have an anti-social moral code as an individual, certainly, but generally speaking, individuals "inherit" their morality from those who brought them up (with minor variations). Furthermore, individuals are influenced by those around them. So you get a sort of predominant morality for an entire society.
The idea that an entire societies morals change "like a weathervane" sounds like you're suggesting that this would happen very quickly and with the possibility of 180 changes. However, you can observe that morality *has* changed over the last few centuries. It was considered immoral for a woman to show her ankles in Victorian England for example. In most parts of the US of 200 years ago (and some places even now) it was considered immoral to marry someone of a different race than onesself.
It may have not been rapid, but I would suggest that the observed morality of society has indeed changed.
I hasten to add that your challenge of the survival of the fittest society as a tautology is a very similar response to a common Evolution challenge.
"Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are those that survive. Therefore, evolution by natural selection is a tautology (a circular definition)."
However, this argument is countered here (far better than ever I could).
I'm not suggesting my pet moral "evolution" theory is actually right, of course. I have no evidence to support it. I just think it's "cute".:)
I agree that the definition of "good" is somewhat contentious. However, I think we can acceptably define "good" using dictionary references. The most common that comes up is "a desirable outcome" or other words to that effect. Since we're talking morality in the context of society, I would expect that "good" is "desirable outcomes for the individual and the society in which that individual resides".
I suspect different definitions of "good" put differing emphasis on "individual" and "society" in the previous definition.
Do you disagree ?
As for the tautology you counter my example with, it's not the moral codes which survive, it's the societies which employ useful ones. So a society which has a non-useful moral structure built into it is in danger from internal and external forces. For example, a society which propounded human sacrifice is in danger of dieing out. On the other hand, if such a society only sacrificed enemies they have captured on the battlefield, then that is a "more useful" morality than sacrificing their own citizens. The latter society is in less danger of being eliminated than the former.
In any case, my suggestion was not meant to be an absolute. It was a somewhat tongue in cheek theory, but the important part is that it was just that : a theory... an hypothesis. The distinction between your stance and mine, is that I can revise mine. I can test my ideas against the evidence (well, perhaps. As you say, it's slightly circular, because it's hard to quantify what exactly is "useful" in terms of survival traits of entire societies). If those ideas do not match the evidence I can revise or discard the ideas.
If your faith does not match the evidence, what do you do ?
That's _exactly_ my point. How do we determine what is good ? You said originally Without God, can we make any determinations about good and evil? and this seems to imply that you've already made up your mind to follow the authority model of determination of morality. You have made a decision of your own free will to give up your own ability to determine right from wrong to someone else. Someone who has told you that they've been told by God, or read in a book that was purportedly written by God or his agents, what is right and what is wrong.
Why is the definition "What God told me" any better than "that which I think will make me happy right now" or "that which allows me to dominate others through my force of will" ?
Your argument seems to stem from a prima facie assumption that God exists and therefore any moral model that does not come from him is inherently flawed.
That's not great reasoning - it is merely belief.
I will never attempt to take that belief from you. But to argue that it is impossible for another person to have a useful moral structure in the absence of Faith is merely a circular argument and has no logical force.
You say anyone can invent a moral code, "but what good does it do to invent one." Shall we start by defining "good" in that sentence ? Perhaps we could talk about Social Darwinism for a laugh. Perhaps Moral codes are invented all the time and propagate as memes throughout societies. Only the societies with useful moral codes survive ?
Visual Artists can use MS Paint and so forth for free, but if they want to do a good representation of their work, they need a good digital Tablet, scanner or other input device (eg digital camera) to get their images into the computer... plus decent editing software like CorelDraw, Adobe Photoshop etc.
It's no more trivial to do good visual art with a computer than it is to do audio... after all you can get Creative Recorder for free with a Soundblaster - which is about as useful as MS Paint is to a visual artist. If you want more functionality, it's going to cost you, whether that is for the equipment (guitar, camera, microphone, tablet whatever) or for the software (Photoshop, CoolEdit, ProTools, whatever).
Are Good and Evil relevant terms anyway ? Why not substitute "Useful for the preservation and advancement of individuals and the society in which they live" and "Anti-social behaviours which cause harm to either individuals or their society" ?
Except of course, Good and Evil are much simpler to say.
In a less trite fashion : There are moral codes which do not require a God to impart them.
[city] Yo! Wassup ? Where's our bank ? [city] Hey I just logged on.. what Guild has that Black tower on the red.. ? [city] Hey - I just got attacked at our TOL [city] Geez will you guys SHUT UP! We've got a spy in our/city [city] Spy ? Is that a new Profession / Disc ? [city] Hey I just spent 20 mins trying to log in and when I finally get on someone ganked my at our TOL ! [city] LAAAAGGGG [city] Hey Can someone summon me ? I'm in Safe Mode at TOL after log on, and there's all these guys from BW camping and kiling us. [city] Hey ! I just logged on and our Bank is GONE ! [city] Who toasted our town? [city] These town guards SUCK. [city] Where cna I gte trannin ? [city] Whose da spy ? [city] I'm/quitin this guild, youse guys are teh suk ! [city] EVERYONE LISTEN.LETS CAMPTHEIR TOL AND SEE HOW THEY LIKE IT [city] Stop SHOUTING ! [city] Your teh suk! [city] No you are [city] Hey ! Keep this channel clear for War Room. [city] Yo ! Hey what happened to our Bank? Where's my stuff [city] STFU. CryMoreN00b
While I agree with you (wholeheartedly, I might add), the extensions aren't really to protect the original work - they're there to protect against derivations.
So this means you can't use Mickey Mouse because he's still under copyright. If Steam-Boat Willie falls into the public domain, then it's possible that you'll be able to make a derivative work using the character of Mickey Mouse and Disney can't stop you.
IANAL, but this seems to be the reasoning behind it.
It's not for the authors protection - he's dead by now, remember ? It's for the protection of the Big Business that owns his estate. And we know America loves Big Business !
Interesting. I wonder whether that is an artifact of the process, rather than evidence of a natural law.
For example, it has been suggested that the mere act of observing a phenomena can affect the outcome. Whether this is because the measuring instruments have an inbuilt error that cannot be overcome, or whether the observer has a mental bias towards a particular interpretation.
(Take the double image of the young woman/old woman as an example. Show someone a rough sketch of either one first and then show them the double image. Pretty much everyone will tell you that they see the image as the same as the rough sketch. Almost noone can then see the "other" image inside there until they've been shown the other rough sketch).
Now imagine what happens when, not only the observations made under these constraints, but the MODEL we are observing is subject to the same influence. After all, the models you're talking about are simulations of real world data, but the response to this data is based on algorithms developed by humans, implemented under our own paradigmatic assumptions.
Now this sort of thing works within the limits of the model as it is known. I can write a decent simulation of Newtownian gravity, but I would probably have to have a Theory of Everything before I could have the same computerized model accurately simulate quantum level and light speed level effects. Not that I have the faintest clue about those things, but I'm suggesting that there are inherent limits to a computer simulation. Furthermore, the nature of these things is often compounding of small errors, or they have hard limits to the bounds of information they can process.
In my mind, this could also explain the phenomena you're observing in your computations. I would not want to fall into the logical deep water of expecting that these observations bear more than a coincidental relationship to the workings of Evolution (gradual or punctuated). Well - not without some actual evidence.
It's a nice thought though. Certainly nothing I've just said indicates that it *doesn't* work that way... just that there's no reason to think that it does...
Slashdot Mirror
> the aberrant code is "less moral" on an
> absolute scale, since it failed to
> help that society survive.
One difficulty for me seems to be that this argument can only be applied in retrospect. I mean, if a society controls most of the world - i.e., the USSR in the 1950s - is that society the one that can make the rules?
On the other hand, I bet you'll respond that "no, because the USSR was killing millions of its own people, and so was deviating from the pattern of successful societies and was thus sowing the seeds of its own demise". Hm.
Yeah - brilliant isn't it ! It's almost as useful to me as the "God did it !" argument that some others use.
Seriously - it just seems too neat and tidy - I agree with you. If it were a real theory and not something I just made up on the spur of the moment, then maybe I could use it to make certain predictions. Unfortunately, since it's something that works on predicting what people and societies do (Hari Seldon anyone ?) then I doubt very much whether I could make such a thing work. It's not like Gravity you know
> allows for almost any logical argument
> to be cut off at the pass
I know what you mean. Fossil evidence? God put 'em there. Carbon dating? God can change it. Big bang? God's method of creation. And so forth.
Yeah - very frustrating.
Of course, I can gel with the Big Bang being the Creation. That doesn't bug me very much. It's the flipside - where people say that the *evidence* is being manipulated *after the fact* by God.
New Earth Creationists are the worst at this. They can't accept the Earth being older than it implies it is in the Bible, so God has PLANTED the evidence that suggests that it is *just to fool Scientists* (or some other obscure reason that no self-respecting Deity would ever possess). I mean really.. Don't these people see that this pathetic ostrich-head-in-the-sand and fingers in the ears (I can't HEAR you nyah nyah) routine just makes all Christians look like fools ?
> my world view isn't tied to a belief
> in the way morality comes about.
Well.... isn't it? I mean, isn't your world view tied to the belief that God did not promulgate a specific moral code?
Not really. That's currently my operating assumption. If I could find some evidence for a) the existence of a Deity and b) that He (it?) was the Christian God and c) that He imparted the moral code of the Bible...
then I'd promptly accept that.
And I'm serious.
But I don't work on faith you see. That's my problem. I really don't have a vested interest in proving there is (are) no God(s). I figure if they're out there, then either they're content with the way things are or _any day now_ they're gonna come and shake things up. Either way, I don't see them caring one way or the other if I'm a believer, or they'd do something about that (if it were in their power to do so).
I don't ask for much - a simple visitation would work. I won't accept a string of weird coincidences or the Face of the Virgin Mary in a bowl of porridge. If God wasn't too busy to carry Elijah into heaven in a chariot of fire, then he could easily just take over every tv station on the planet and give the unbelievers something to talk about. He is, after all, omnipresent and omnipotent, right ?
Oh, but lets not really get into that. I know there are a hundred different excuses for why He doesn't do these things. They're up there with the ones about why the death of innocent children in earthquakes seems to be a required part of His Eternal Unknowable Plan.
> if evidence comes around that shows you
> that morality isn't God-given, then you
> either have to rationalize the evidence,
> or give up your belief.
Right, certainly, if Christianity were proved false, it would be false
Well that's interesting that you accept something and then require it to be proved false. I'm the other way around. Prove it true ! I say.
But seriously, one annoying thing about most religions is that they *cannot* be proved false. How would one go about designing a way to test Christianity ? To falsify it ?
BTW - Do you see your religion as an All or Nothing kind of thing ? I ask this because there seems to be a trend in the modern Christian to sort of give and take parts of the religion... We've already discussed some of those examples (4th commandment etc)..
The reason this becomes important is "where does it end?". At what point does the set of beliefs as they have been changed and new evidence rationalized becomes something other than Christianity ?
That seems to be another strength of a scientific approach. It's compartmentalized. Just because one part is bad doesn't mean it all has to be wrong.
This is not to say that one cannot both be a Christian and a Scientist. They are by no means exclusive. I just can't stand those purported Scientists who manipulate evidence in light of their religious beliefs. These people are dangerous to Christians and Scientists.
> I can revise my ideas on *how morality
> comes about*
Ah, OK, I see your point. Hm. Yup, you or I could reject Christianity (or Catholicism or whatever) and turn to atheism or secular humanism or Islam or some such. Of course, our belief or lack thereof wouldn't make any of those religions untrue.
Actually, while what you just said is also true, I think what I was trying to say was that my world view isn't tied to a belief in the way morality comes about.
Sort of like science vs religion. Good science (and there's a lot of bad out there) doesn't care *what the theory is*, just how you arrive at it. So if I turn out to be completely wrong (and morality comes from somewhere else) then that doesn't really bother me. As long as the evidence is there, I can freely change my mind and still be consistent in my approach and beliefs.
On the other hand, if evidence comes around that shows you that morality isn't God-given, then you either have to rationalize the evidence, or give up your belief.
yeah I can see it now.
First I have to get my hand into the right place. So I glance down to see if my hand is positioned over the camera. It's relatively easy to find a shift stick, but without that tactile reference point, I expect it might require a little bit of concentration to find the sweet spot.
Then I wave my hand in a set of gestures that I have to concentrate to remember.
Hmmm was it the circle to the left with the index finger ? Or was it the fist pump followed by the come hither wave ?
How is this any better than reaching over to the volume knob and twisting it ? What if the volume knob was on the steering wheel ?
apart from the expandability advantage (You have to re-wire knobs and dials to do different things - I expect you just need to upload a new gesture profile to get different responses with this system)... I really don't see that this will improve things all that much.
For some reason this bugs me... I don't know. Something about referring to a moral code as "useful". Sounds a bit Machiavellian - as if any moral code that resulted in the survival of the society was good.
Yeah - this sort of thinking does tend to feel a little uncomfortable. After all, we're talking about morality here - it's one of those things that is heavily ingrained in our psyches. It's wrapped around a lot of beliefs and is often a distillation of all those closely held values that we were brought up to hold dear. Add in a belief in the infallibility of the source of those values, and you have something that is entwined with our very identity. It's part of who we perceive ourselves to be.
When you mess with that, it gets pretty uncomfortable, I can tell you.
Don't forget that the survival of the society has to be taken in context of competition with other societies as well. So you'll get moral codes which define "good" as something abhorrent to bigger, more functional societies... but those who adhere to these aberrant codes are likely to be eliminated by the bigger society. Survival of the fittest on a big scale. So I would argue that the aberrant code is "less moral" on an absolute scale, since it failed to help that society survive.
Although now we're back to defining "good", and it seems we're at "that which prolongs a society".
- and the individuals who are members of that society.
Yes.
Let me say, however, that I'm not certain I'm not missing something. I too, have a niggling feeling that there should be more to it than that.
Partly because, if it were as simple as that, I'm sure a real philosopher would have coined it by now. So I'll have to do some more digging - see if I can rustle up some non-theistic arguments against this position. (I say non-theistic, not because I don't believe in God, or any God, (my beliefs are irrelevant) but because most theistic arguments seem to presuppose God's existance, which is an untestable assumption and allows for almost any logical argument to be cut off at the pass with "God said so").
The problem, though, is that a "desirable outcome" for one person is not necessarily desirable for another - i.e., what was desirable for the Nazis was not desirable for the Jews. I think this idea is called moral relativism, although I'm not sure. But you see the point.
:)
Oh indeed I do. And philosophers have struggled with this one for centuries
I still think a decent operating benchmark is the one I first said, which included the individual and the society in the statement.. something along the lines "desirable outcome for the individual and the society".
Now this still doesn't deal with the aberrant society. If you judge the Nazis only by their actions, eliminating those individuals who were acting out of self-preservation (disobeying orders can get you shot, you know) and those who were 5th columnists (working against the Nazis from inside their own organization), you're left with a bunch of maniacs who believed that annihilating the Jews was the morally correct thing to do (lets assume).
The key question is "Were they right?"
Moral relativism says "sure.. why not?" Their morals are as good as ours, so yeah..
But the key missing ingredient is that their moral stance ultimately did harm to their society and individuals within it.. (even if we discount the Jews who obviously weren't considered *part* of the society in question).
By taking a genocidal, aggressive expansionist approach, the Nazis caused a situation where other societies cooperated in their destruction.
> The distinction between your stance and
> mine, is that I can revise mine.
That's precisely the point we are working on, I think. Can we change what is right and wrong as we see fit?
No - you misunderstand. I meant that I can revise my ideas on *how morality comes about*. That's a separate issue from revising my actual moral code (which I can do as well, but wasn't what I was getting at)
If I decided that mentally handicapped people were not fit to live, would I be right?
I would have to say no - because it would fail the test of "desirable outcome for the individual and society". You might find it desirable, but the handicapped person would not. There could be arguments either way for the welfare of a society which eliminates mental deficiency. In the end, I think it would possibly be harmful to the society, but I can't prove that.
but again, we're back to that test of mine..
I have to say (as an aside) - the best part of this discussion is trying to come up with a reason why my test is useful... Hmm. I need to read some more philosophy and history I think.
I hear you, and that's a good point about being responsible for thinking about things. I certainly don't want to abdicate that responsibility. :) (If it makes any difference, I had faith in you LOL)
:-)
.. and no , I don't think it's moral to treat women as objects, or own slaves, but it seems that it's OK by God.. but that's another argument).... if I am covetting my neighbours wife, then I've sinned in thought.
Nor do you sound like you have
I understand that there is comfort in believing that a higher (smarter, infallible) being has determined what is right and wrong. It allows one to say "Hey - look, in these sticky moral and ethical situations, if I can't work out for myself what is the obvious answer, I can fall back on what God teaches, because I know he's always right, so I don't have to worry about doing the wrong thing."
I can see that.
Unfortunately, this works best if the teachings of God are always clear and cover every situation. Some believe that they do, but I've found in practice that for every positive thing that is said in the Bible, there's something quite nasty hidden away there that harkens back to a time when it was moral to own slaves and sacrifice animals (and ones only son, Isaac) etc.
I think the evidence agrees with you - that is, societies that follow a certain moral code will tend to survive. I think that's because societies that follow moral codes that oppose God's law are by definition bound to have problems. Just like if someone doesn't believe in gravity, that's OK - but they should stay away from high places
Interesting point of view. I have a couple of questions.. what of those societies which have never heard of God and yet get along fine with each other (Kalahari tribesmen etc)? What of those who have heard of God, but still choose to follow other belief systems and get along fine ? What of those who do profess to follow the teachings of Judeo-Christianity and yet self-destruct or war with other "sects" who still nominally believe the same things (can we say "the Crusades", "Jihad" ?)
If the Word was so useful as a teaching, wouldn't it mean that the most successful societies (internally, and externally) would be those who followed it to the letter and the spirit?
I don't think that looking at history, you can really say this.
> can we really say they are a moral Christian
True, as the Bible says, "faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead".
Good point... BTW - IIRC one of the priests in my life used to teach that you can sin in thought.. I wonder, is that true as well ? For example, "covetting" from the 10 commandments seems to imply mere thought. If I am zealously desirous of my neighbours wife (or slave, or house, or other chattel
Yet if I profess faith, and yet perform no virtuous acts, can I be truly said to have Faith ?
But I digress...
> how many people now work on the Sabbath
Hm. True, although you could make a decent argument to the effect of "we're saved by grace not by works". Also, if a Christian sins, that does not invalidate Christianity. Nonetheless, your point is well taken.
I'm not familiar with the "saved by grace not by works" argument... could you spell it out for me ?
I agree that if someone breaks the tenets of their moral code, that doesn't invalidate the code... but what if the majority of people who claim to follow that code have modified it to exclude the parts that they find irrelevant? What if it's always the same part ? I guess what I was trying to show with that particular example is that many Christians in "first world" countries no longer consider working on the Sabbath the *mortal sin* that it once was. Most of them wouldn't even consider it a sin at all. These people have *modified* their moral code to allow as acceptable an act that was once immoral.
How many preachers would castigate their congregations for allowin
Every time you try to operate one of these weird black controls that are labelled in black on a black background, a little black light lights up black to let you know you've done it.
But ActiveX controls are exactly secure as you believe : which is to say "not at all".
It's not "my code" in the sense that I invented it, though. I didn't invent it, nor can I change it. Rather freeing, actually.
.. and that has to do with observable phenomena, such as the capacity for an individual or group of individuals to survive when they act according to a set of moral beliefs.
:) ). We _can_ say that "foo is really bad" if foo can be shown to cause actual harm to individuals or their society.
:)
yeah - I did mean "yours" as in "the moral code you ascribe to", rather than "the moral code you invented". But on your other points - Part of what I was getting at was that the moral code which you ascribe to has been reinterpretted over the years (by others, if not you). There are numerous examples of what was immoral (and not merely socially unacceptable) becoming no longer immoral, and in some cases actually moral. Admittedly most of these were "fringe" rather than "core" elements of the code.
As for being "freed" because you cannot change the moral code... is that because you are absolved of any responsibility for your actions as long as you follow that code ? If that is so, I'm sorry to hear it. Why? I hear you ask. Because to me that is giving up the responsibility for thinking about things - one of our greatest gifts.
I agree that "thinking it is right doesn't make it so", but at the same time I was making a case for reasons (other than "God said so") why something is "absolutely" right or wrong
Can we make statements like "foo is really bad" ? Again, don't make the mistake that I'm a pure Relativist (I was swayed by Cultural Relativist arguments for a long time, but I'm over it
I guess the next question is "why is causing harm bad?"
And there you have me. That's irreducible, because harm is defined in terms very similar to "bad".
Hmm.
As for the moral view of America (for example), that's why I suggested that the true moral position of an individual can only be observed through their actions. Someone may profess to be a great Christian, going to church every sunday etc. But if that person goes around killing people, can we really say they are a moral Christian ?
For a less extreme example, if you ask many Christians whether they follow the Bible, they will answer "yes, to the best of my ability". But if you observe their actions, you can find many places in the Bible which are ignored as required. If you ask them why they don't do "foo" as it says in the Bible, they might say something like "that's not relevant in this day and age".
It's the little things like that which suggest to me that even the Christian moral code has changed over the centuries. The basics are pretty clear (Don't kill people), but how many people now work on the Sabbath ? That's a pretty big breach of the 4th commandment, isn't it ? Lets not even get into the exceptions to things that are allowed in the Bible, but which would be proscribed in our society.
I guess I just don't see the necessity of an external entity/force to impart a moral code, when I can see that morals are really just the set of rules under which people operate to get along with each other.
In the same way that organisms have evolved into cooperative ecological niches physically, social animals may have evolved rulesets to govern their interpersonal behaviour.
It's no doubt easier to change ones mind than it is to change ones ecological niche, however. But it's surprising how rarely people do. Is that because its advantageous to us as individuals and as a species to think homogenously (to better function as a group) - with a few "mutations" every so often so that our "mental DNA" doesn't ossify ?
Anyway - now I'm raving.
Ahh - but what are you really measuring "that which is right" against here ? Isn't it your own moral code ?
Again, the circular argument.
As for those horrendous acts of societies in the past (and present) : How many of those people fought for what they thought was right ? Does the fact that we disagree with them (and won the war) make them wrong? (Oh I know - I'll be labelled a Nazi next... don't get me wrong. I don't think what they did was right at all... but not because God told me, but because Nazism wasn't good for their society. Same position I take on human sacrifice - it's not good for the individuals, nor the society.)
Yes, I feel that racism is bad. Why do I feel that way ? Possibly because I've grown past my grandfathers social mores, but also because I have observed that racism and other forms of discrimination have deleterious effects on a society which contains heterogeneous racial mixes.
As for Americas monopoly.. sorry if that sounded like an attack on America. Far from it - it was merely an example of differing moral codes. You've graciously provided me with another - one which hasn't changed much, but is more lax now than it has ever been in the past.
re: observed morality
Is there any other way to determine the overall moral views of a society than to observe their actions ? I can enquire as to the moral compass of a thousand individuals within a society, and tabulate their answers, but if they habitually act counter to that professed moral code, can I truly take their word for it ?
RE: Modesty.
If one were to be raised in a village in the Amazon, would one still require head to toe covering ?
Isn't that really Therapisht ?
--Bond, Jamesh Bond.
Don't forget the Spear of Longinus (the spear that pierced Jesus' side when he was on the cross... apparently allows the possessor to conquer the world or something)
It was supposed to be an obsession of Hitlers too.
... take my wife ... ... Please !
Exactly, and so it could be changed at will - it would be more of a weathervane than a moral code.
Firstly, a moral code is a social thing. You can have an anti-social moral code as an individual, certainly, but generally speaking, individuals "inherit" their morality from those who brought them up (with minor variations). Furthermore, individuals are influenced by those around them. So you get a sort of predominant morality for an entire society.
The idea that an entire societies morals change "like a weathervane" sounds like you're suggesting that this would happen very quickly and with the possibility of 180 changes.
However, you can observe that morality *has* changed over the last few centuries. It was considered immoral for a woman to show her ankles in Victorian England for example. In most parts of the US of 200 years ago (and some places even now) it was considered immoral to marry someone of a different race than onesself.
It may have not been rapid, but I would suggest that the observed morality of society has indeed changed.
I hasten to add that your challenge of the survival of the fittest society as a tautology is a very similar response to a common Evolution challenge.
:)
"Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are those that survive. Therefore, evolution by natural selection is a tautology (a circular definition)."
However, this argument is countered here (far better than ever I could).
I'm not suggesting my pet moral "evolution" theory is actually right, of course. I have no evidence to support it. I just think it's "cute".
I agree that the definition of "good" is somewhat contentious.
However, I think we can acceptably define "good" using dictionary references. The most common that comes up is "a desirable outcome" or other words to that effect. Since we're talking morality in the context of society, I would expect that "good" is "desirable outcomes for the individual and the society in which that individual resides".
I suspect different definitions of "good" put differing emphasis on "individual" and "society" in the previous definition.
Do you disagree ?
As for the tautology you counter my example with, it's not the moral codes which survive, it's the societies which employ useful ones. So a society which has a non-useful moral structure built into it is in danger from internal and external forces. For example, a society which propounded human sacrifice is in danger of dieing out. On the other hand, if such a society only sacrificed enemies they have captured on the battlefield, then that is a "more useful" morality than sacrificing their own citizens.
The latter society is in less danger of being eliminated than the former.
In any case, my suggestion was not meant to be an absolute. It was a somewhat tongue in cheek theory, but the important part is that it was just that : a theory... an hypothesis. The distinction between your stance and mine, is that I can revise mine.
I can test my ideas against the evidence (well, perhaps. As you say, it's slightly circular, because it's hard to quantify what exactly is "useful" in terms of survival traits of entire societies). If those ideas do not match the evidence I can revise or discard the ideas.
If your faith does not match the evidence, what do you do ?
That's _exactly_ my point. How do we determine what is good ? You said originally Without
God, can we make any determinations about good and evil? and this seems to imply that you've already made up your mind to follow the authority model of determination of morality. You have made a decision of your own free will to give up your own ability to determine right from wrong to someone else. Someone who has told you that they've been told by God, or read in a book that was purportedly written by God or his agents, what is right and what is wrong.
Why is the definition "What God told me" any better than "that which I think will make me happy right now" or "that which allows me to dominate others through my force of will" ?
Your argument seems to stem from a prima facie assumption that God exists and therefore any moral model that does not come from him is inherently flawed.
That's not great reasoning - it is merely belief.
I will never attempt to take that belief from you. But to argue that it is impossible for another person to have a useful moral structure in the absence of Faith is merely a circular argument and has no logical force.
You say anyone can invent a moral code, "but what good does it do to invent one."
Shall we start by defining "good" in that sentence ?
Perhaps we could talk about Social Darwinism for a laugh. Perhaps Moral codes are invented all the time and propagate as memes throughout societies. Only the societies with useful moral codes survive ?
Or maybe God is sitting up there laughing at us.
That was exactly the level of every channel I've encountered in that game. /say, /city, /shout, every one.
Seems like my entire server was full of 12 year olds... or at least the signal to noise was so low it might as well have been.
I'm happy you've found a nice guild with some decent people in it, but I never did.
When you rely on Players for Plot, you have to be lucky to avoid this kind of shite.
Visual Artists can use MS Paint and so forth for free, but if they want to do a good representation of their work, they need a good digital Tablet, scanner or other input device (eg digital camera) to get their images into the computer... plus decent editing software like CorelDraw, Adobe Photoshop etc.
.
It's no more trivial to do good visual art with a computer than it is to do audio... after all you can get Creative Recorder for free with a Soundblaster - which is about as useful as MS Paint is to a visual artist.
If you want more functionality, it's going to cost you, whether that is for the equipment (guitar, camera, microphone, tablet whatever) or for the software (Photoshop, CoolEdit, ProTools, whatever)
Are Good and Evil relevant terms anyway ?
Why not substitute
"Useful for the preservation and advancement of individuals and the society in which they live"
and
"Anti-social behaviours which cause harm to either individuals or their society"
?
Except of course, Good and Evil are much simpler to say.
In a less trite fashion : There are moral codes which do not require a God to impart them.
Depends if you can qualify as an "artistic work" or not :)
[city] Yo! Wassup ? Where's our bank ? /city /quitin this guild, youse guys are teh suk ! .LETS CAMPTHEIR TOL AND SEE HOW THEY LIKE IT
[city] Hey I just logged on.. what Guild has that Black tower on the red.. ?
[city] Hey - I just got attacked at our TOL
[city] Geez will you guys SHUT UP! We've got a spy in our
[city] Spy ? Is that a new Profession / Disc ?
[city] Hey I just spent 20 mins trying to log in and when I finally get on someone ganked my at our TOL !
[city] LAAAAGGGG
[city] Hey Can someone summon me ? I'm in Safe Mode at TOL after log on, and there's all these guys from BW camping and kiling us.
[city] Hey ! I just logged on and our Bank is GONE !
[city] Who toasted our town?
[city] These town guards SUCK.
[city] Where cna I gte trannin ?
[city] Whose da spy ?
[city] I'm
[city] EVERYONE LISTEN
[city] Stop SHOUTING !
[city] Your teh suk!
[city] No you are
[city] Hey ! Keep this channel clear for War Room.
[city] Yo ! Hey what happened to our Bank? Where's my stuff
[city] STFU. CryMoreN00b
Welcome to the wonderful plot that is Shadowbane.
While I agree with you (wholeheartedly, I might add), the extensions aren't really to protect the original work - they're there to protect against derivations.
So this means you can't use Mickey Mouse because he's still under copyright. If Steam-Boat Willie falls into the public domain, then it's possible that you'll be able to make a derivative work using the character of Mickey Mouse and Disney can't stop you.
IANAL, but this seems to be the reasoning behind it.
It's not for the authors protection - he's dead by now, remember ? It's for the protection of the Big Business that owns his estate. And we know America loves Big Business !
Interesting.
I wonder whether that is an artifact of the process, rather than evidence of a natural law.
For example, it has been suggested that the mere act of observing a phenomena can affect the outcome. Whether this is because the measuring instruments have an inbuilt error that cannot be overcome, or whether the observer has a mental bias towards a particular interpretation.
(Take the double image of the young woman/old woman as an example. Show someone a rough sketch of either one first and then show them the double image. Pretty much everyone will tell you that they see the image as the same as the rough sketch. Almost noone can then see the "other" image inside there until they've been shown the other rough sketch).
Now imagine what happens when, not only the observations made under these constraints, but the MODEL we are observing is subject to the same influence.
After all, the models you're talking about are simulations of real world data, but the response to this data is based on algorithms developed by humans, implemented under our own paradigmatic assumptions.
Now this sort of thing works within the limits of the model as it is known. I can write a decent simulation of Newtownian gravity, but I would probably have to have a Theory of Everything before I could have the same computerized model accurately simulate quantum level and light speed level effects. Not that I have the faintest clue about those things, but I'm suggesting that there are inherent limits to a computer simulation. Furthermore, the nature of these things is often compounding of small errors, or they have hard limits to the bounds of information they can process.
In my mind, this could also explain the phenomena you're observing in your computations.
I would not want to fall into the logical deep water of expecting that these observations bear more than a coincidental relationship to the workings of Evolution (gradual or punctuated).
Well - not without some actual evidence.
It's a nice thought though. Certainly nothing I've just said indicates that it *doesn't* work that way... just that there's no reason to think that it does...