Talking Religion...

[buckeyegrad]

Just read his Q & A over on Amazon

I don't know how this differs from whatever makes me the happiest is moral. Which is the same thing I get from what Nietzshe said.

Edit: To go a bit further he says as as one reviewer states "that morality is about the well-being of conscious creatures". He would have to prove that too.

Then I read more reviews from other atheists about his argument. Color me not impressed.

Nietzshe is the best philosopher to go to on non-theistic morality. The lack of a god does not mean there is no morality; it means that the only morality is the elevation of the self over all others--the creation of the superman. To suggest other forms of morality in a non-theistic world is to only delude one's self, and as Nietzshe argued, to be immoral.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Nietzshe is the best philosopher to go to on non-theistic morality. The lack of a god does not mean there is no morality; it means that the only morality is the elevation of the self over all others--the creation of the superman. To suggest other forms of morality in a non-theistic world is to only delude one's self, and as Nietzshe argued, to be immoral.

And as always the point could very well be argued under Nietzshe's philosopy that that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Kim Jong Il, are(were) more moral than any of us because they acheived more power.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I would have to see some argument as to why we would measure successful morality in terms of power accumulation.

Seems to me that morality, and specifically non-theistic morality, should be measured in terms of whether or not an act is designed to help or hurt the continuation of the species... or... reproductive success, anyway.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I would have to see some argument as to why we would measure successful morality in terms of power accumulation.

Seems to me that morality, and specifically non-theistic morality, should be measured in terms of whether or not an act is designed to help or hurt the continuation of the species... or... reproductive success, anyway.

That's all fine and well for you, but if I'm only going to be on earth for ~80 years (with nothing but dust afterwords) why should I care about the continuation of the species?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

That's all fine and well for you, but if I'm only going to be on earth for ~80 years (with nothing but dust afterwords) why should I care about the continuation of the species?

No idea. It seems to be a compulsion consequent to life. "want" or "care" seems to be irrelevant.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

No idea. It seems to be a compulsion consequent to life. "want" or "care" seems to be irrelevant.

I hope you don't mind if ask you to expand further. It could be my reading comprehension level, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[Taosman]

Nietzshe is the best philosopher to go to on non-theistic morality. The lack of a god does not mean there is no morality; it means that the only morality is the elevation of the self over all others--the creation of the superman. To suggest other forms of morality in a non-theistic world is to only delude one's self, and as Nietzshe argued, to be immoral.

If we are to observe simians scientifically, their actions bring doubt to Nietzshe's view of a non-theistic morality. It wouldn't be the first time Nietzshe's theories were called to question. Believers could use Nietzshe,s view to actually attack atheists arguments. "See, even Nietzshe says we can't act compassionately without religion!"
It would seem that apes don't need religion to act compassionately. It's in their DNA and therefore in ours. But religion can certainly point us in the right direction. And expand upon our natural tendencies to be compassionate.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I hope you don't mind if ask you to expand further. It could be my reading comprehension level, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Yeah, I'm not articulating myself all that well...

What I mean is.. if we take religion out of it (morality) the measure seems to me to be associated with something that is compelled by simply being. So... when I behave "morally" the measure, I think, should have something to do with propagating the species (to the extent that doing so is benefit to the self, I suppose).. in our case, humanity. I suppose it's like this.. when a Lion kills an animal for food...it's not immoral.

eh... that's not quite getting me there either, I guess... Its hard to explain, I suppose (plus, I must confess I am not giving this my full attention at the moment)...

So... life begets life.... whether an act is moral or not should be decided in terms of whether or not the act helps or hurts the continuation of our life... or the betterment of our life. Again, talking non-theistically.

Personally, I don't believe in morality at all. There only is.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Yeah, I'm not articulating myself all that well...

What I mean is.. if we take religion out of it (morality) the measure seems to me to be associated with something that is compelled by simply being. So... when I behave "morally" the measure, I think, should have something to do with propagating the species (to the extent that doing so is benefit to the self, I suppose).. in our case, humanity. I suppose it's like this.. when a Lion kills an animal for food...it's not immoral.

eh... that's not quite getting me there either, I guess... Its hard to explain, I suppose (plus, I must confess I am not giving this my full attention at the moment)...

So... life begets life.... whether an act is moral or not should be decided in terms of whether or not the act helps or hurts the continuation of our life... or the betterment of our life. Again, talking non-theistically.

Personally, I don't believe in morality at all. There only is.

Yeah, I remembered only the "is" being one of your beliefs and I'm glad you cleared up that you're arguing the hypothetical.

I would contend that any morality that doesn't affect how I care about it to be an oxymoron. Which was the point in my question. If Life begets life is a fact then it's not a morality at all. If the continuation of the species has no effect on me personally and I'm unanswerable to anyone ultimately for my contribution or detriment to it, and my ~80 years on this earth is all I have then what would stop me from following Nietzshe?

If all this was the case then why would I care whether I was moral in the eyes of you, Brewtus, BGrad, the law or anyone else. I've got my 80 years to obtain as much pleasure as possible with power being the primary means to it. Now if being moral to you Brewtus, Bgrad, helped me achieve more power then I guess I would then be all for it.

On your personal belief what is the definition do you use for morality? I think I have a broad definition that would include whether one should feed his own children. In other words I think that morality is a standard of right and wrong. Do you believe there is never a right and wrong choice?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Yeah, I remembered only the "is" being one of your beliefs and I'm glad you cleared up that you're arguing the hypothetical.

I would contend that any morality that doesn't affect how I care about it to be an oxymoron. Which was the point in my question. If Life begets life is a fact then it's not a morality at all. If the continuation of the species has no effect on me personally and I'm unanswerable to anyone ultimately for my contribution or detriment to it, and my ~80 years on this earth is all I have then what would stop me from following Nietzshe?

If all this was the case then why would I care whether I was moral in the eyes of you, Brewtus, BGrad, the law or anyone else. I've got my 80 years to obtain as much pleasure as possible with power being the primary means to it. Now if being moral to you Brewtus, Bgrad, helped me achieve more power then I guess I would then be all for it.

The Bold part, I think, provides the answer. Man, on evolutionary terms, clearly has organized in groups with a design on it being better for survival. Thus, helping people DOES help you. I'm still not sure power is the answer.... but... thinking about things like "alpha male" I suppose I could buy it.

On your personal belief what is the definition do you use for morality? I think I have a broad definition that would include whether one should feed his own children. In other words I think that morality is a standard of right and wrong. Do you believe there is never a right and wrong choice?

Well, I often times speak from a.... what.... removed position. That is to say, from some sort of "universal" perspective (At the risk of trying to make myself sound more haughty, which is not my intention) rather than a personal one.

So... I believe in good and bad... that is to say, I think certain acts are good and certain acts are bad... in my judgment. But... on a "universal scale" they are just acts. Morality only exists as we define it. In that you asked me how I define it... well.. evidence is.. there is NO universal morality.

 

[jwinslow]

So... I believe in good and bad... that is to say, I think certain acts are good and certain acts are bad... in my judgment. But... on a "universal scale" they are just acts.

How do you believe in them being good/bad if you believe they are just acts void of moral distinction?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

How do you believe in them being good/bad if you believe they are just acts void of moral distinction?

Like I tried to explain - it's a difference between me being stuck in the human condition and my being able to contemplate acts outside of my own humanity... or judgment.

I certainly do make choices, good and bad.. I mean.. I "get" that... but, when all is said and done, universally.. I've chosen nothing.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

The Bold part, I think, provides the answer. Man, on evolutionary terms, clearly has organized in groups with a design on it being better for survival. Thus, helping people DOES help you. I'm still not sure power is the answer.... but... thinking about things like "alpha male" I suppose I could buy it.

Still helping the fellow man is subserviant to the aquisition of power and is only good if it is a means to that end. Screwing you guys over may be just as if not more than viable option to obtaining the power. So if screwing you over was a better way to gain power then helping you would actually become immoral.

Well, I often times speak from a.... what.... removed position. That is to say, from some sort of "universal" perspective (At the risk of trying to make myself sound more haughty, which is not my intention) rather than a personal one.

So... I believe in good and bad... that is to say, I think certain acts are good and certain acts are bad... in my judgment. But... on a "universal scale" they are just acts. Morality only exists as we define it. In that you asked me how I define it... well.. evidence is.. there is NO universal morality.

This, I think, leads back to Nietzshe.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Still helping the fellow man is subserviant to the aquisition of power and is only good if it is a means to that end.

What proof is there of this remark?

Screwing you guys over may be just as if not more than viable option to obtaining the power. So if screwing you over was a better way to gain power then helping you would actually become immoral.

Again, if the measure is the acquisition of power. I'm not convinced that's the case. (Although, again, I see an "alpha male" angle as it relates to non-theistic concepts).

But.. in any case.. this commentary does go directly to the point I was making earlier... if what is moral can change, there is no such thing as morality. Morality CLEARLY does change, by the way.... it's cultural. In certain cultures things we would consider to be straight WRONG are considered to be perfectly right. And, conversely, things we believe to be RIGHT or perfectly understood as wrong minded to them.

A lot of wars have been fought over these differences, when you think about it.

Killing people over a different set of ideas is objectionable to me. It's... immoral...

 

[buckeyegrad]

If we are to observe simians scientifically, their actions bring doubt to Nietzshe's view of a non-theistic morality. It wouldn't be the first time Nietzshe's theories were called to question. Believers could use Nietzshe,s view to actually attack atheists arguments. "See, even Nietzshe says we can't act compassionately without religion!"
It would seem that apes don't need religion to act compassionately. It's in their DNA and therefore in ours. But religion can certainly point us in the right direction. And expand upon our natural tendencies to be compassionate.

Those who would argue that Nietzshe's non-theistic morality does not contain compassion really doesn't understand Nietzshe. He doesn't do away with compasion, but rather he re-defines it.

If we look at apes and see compassion, it is only because we are projecting our own understanding of what compassion is onto them. How we in the West view compasion is based upon 2000 years of influence by the Judeo-Christian point of view--even if one rejects that view, they cannot escape its influence on his/her thinking.

Nietzshe however showed that in a truly non-theistic morality, compassion looks much different. For example, not showing mercy to the less fortunate is actually the most compassionate think to do, because the most compassionate thing to do is to have them no longer exist. If we take this point of view, the ape communities may not be judged as showing compassion anymore.