Janszoon

At what point have I shifted my justification around? I think the problem here is that you want absolutes from a viewpoint that does not propose absolutes. I have at no point claimed that what I'm talking about is perfect, I'm just saying it works and it makes more sense than basing one's morality on the whim of a god which may or may not exist.

You ask a lot of "why" questions in the paragraph above, but honestly I see them as non-sequiturs. To ask one of my own: Why does there have to be a big ultimate justification for these things? Isn't it the general welfare enough? You ask about where this train of thought leads, well let me ask you the same question: Where does your train of thought lead? What is the purpose of morality that you believe to be capriciously created by a higher power? If "rape and kill" is just as moral as "feed the hungry" as long as God says so, what's the point? For that matter what, overall, is the purpose of God? And how does believing in the existence of some all-powerful being lead you any closer to a personal morality?

cardboard adolescent

I have already answered these questions. The train leads to nihilism. God is the result of attempting to overcome nihilism. But the conception of God that nihilism leads to is not the same as that found in the Bible, which tends to anthropomorphise God. God must be something above man which man can strive towards but never achieve, otherwise all of man's striving is just a closed circle, the snake eating its own tail. This idea of God also implies that man's purpose is to overcome his own nature, which is the goal of morality. I'm not trying to prove that this concept of God is real, that would be completely absurd. I'm just arguing it is necessary for morality. This concept of God is not one that's going to talk to you and tell you what to do, in fact, it is the complete opposite: this God sits entirely outside experience. Experience does not give us God, in fact, experience gives us futility. Thus we are compelled to either move beyond experience or to embrace futility and thus reject morality.

Janszoon

There's a couple of huge presumptions here. The first, of course, is that a closed circle is a bad thing. Another is that the idea of a God somehow breaks us out of a circle. By adding God to the equation, you aren't solving the problems, you're just transferring them. The same questions still exist, they just become questions about God instead of questions about humanity: What is God's purpose? Why should God endeavor to create morality? Etc., etc., the snake is still eating its own tail.

What makes you think that the goal of morality is for "man to overcome his own nature"? To me, it seems like the goal of morality is to create as pleasant a life experience as possible for ourselves and others.

So how can you possibly derive a moral code from a being that sits completely outside of experience? If he has no communication with humanity, then how can he be of any assistance with regard to morality?

Sorry, but this is a false dichotomy. You have given no reasons for this either/or statement. What's to prevent someone from embracing experience and morality at the same time?

cardboard adolescent

I never presumed that being stuck in a closed circle was a bad thing--futility is not bad, it renders good and bad meaningless, two sides of a coin some force is compelling you to flip for all eternity. Asking for the purpose of God is limiting yourself to thinking in experiential terms, which is impossible if God sits outside experience. We recognize our own nature in the Ouroboros, and if this recognition leads us to assume God we must also assume his nature is radically different, and incomprehensible to us. I'm not saying this is a step we have to make! I'm just saying it's one we're compelled to make, especially if we want have meaning and value.

Then your conception of morality already entails a contradiction. You live off me, I live off you, and the whole world lives off of everybody. See we're gonna be exploited by somebody by somebody la la la la

Again, because we realize the futility of our own nature, and in assuming a being with a higher nature we see our purpose as overcoming ourselves and striving toward divinity. But I have already said that this "higher nature" is incomprehensible to us, so how the hell are we supposed to strive toward it? That is the ultimate mystery of life. Either there is no point to life or there is a point but no way to be certain what it is. But that's also the beauty of life. If there was a point and everybody knew what it was life would have no impetus to realize that point.

dac

Trying to justify anything with the Bible = fail. Which is why, while I don't support it, I have no problem with g@y marriage.

__________________

Janszoon

I disagree that taking the step you are describing leads to meaning and value, for the reasons I mentioned in my last post. But I think you and I are just going around in circles on this point so I'll leave it at that.

I see no contradiction in trying to create as pleasant a life experience as possible for everybody. Not sure where you're getting the whole exploitation angle from. That's the antithesis of what I'm talking about. The idea is to not exploit people, that's why empathy is so important.

You still haven't answered where the moral code comes from. How does wondering about striving toward a higher power tell you that murder is wrong for example?

BTW, I just want to thank you for the stimulating intellectual discussion. It's not what I generally expect to find on a music board, but it's great to find someone who is able to express an interesting viewpoint so articulately.

RoemerMW

While I agree with you for the most part, I have one question. Since we have society, and since for the most part it benefits us to treat others well in society, do we really need the idea of a God for morality? Isn't society enough for that? If we had no form of religion, but still had society, we would still have the same morality without any of the negative "moral" views of our major religions? Society obviously isn't perfect, and it can be seen as morally right or acceptable for some obviously wrong things (Historical examples include slavery, treatment of women as second class citizens, racism in general, etc.), but for the most part, society has improved vastly in what can be seen as right and the most beneficial to humanity in general and benefits people and makes the ease of life easier, while religion has only made small steps in such things. So couldn't society based morality be seen as being better than religion based morality? I realize that certain concepts were created by religious ideas (hospitals, feeding the poor, etc.), but if we fully incorporate the better aspects of religion based morality into our society, which we have for the most part (at least in the society I live in and am familiar with, I realize that it is not same everywhere else in the world), why can't we just abandon the bad(anti ***, hatred towards other of different faiths, etc) and useless parts (church attendance, not being able to consume certain foods, etc) of religion?

Also, if there is no instilled morality in people, why do people tend to, for the most part, avoid killing even in situations where it would be beneficial for them to do so or have nothing stopping them other than their own personal convictions? Why do people feel empathy towards others when they don't receive any benefits form it other than feeling good about it? I did not have any moral ideas instilled in me by my parents at a young age, and I have no religious convictions, but I feel empathy towards others even when it does not benefit me in any way to do so, society does not reward me for it, and even when the person has done something harmful towards me? I personally feel that we are genetically inclined towards empathy and "morality" as it benefits us to feel empathy everyone if we don't harm each other.

I'm sorry if any of this has already been stated, I attempted to read every post but I may have accidentally skipped a few. Sorry if my post is confusing in any way, I'm really tired at the moment.

__________________
My Music Collection

streetwaves

Why can't a perfect society be something "man can strive towards but never achieve"? After all, a more perfect society is essential to advancement of the species. Overcoming our own nature would still be necessary, as in striving towards a more perfect society, we'd need to overcome the most obvious obstacles that block our progress. I still don't understand how the concept of God that you describe leads to morality (how does assuming God's "nature is radically different, and incomprehensible to us" equate to moral boundaries being set?), but I assume that your answer would lead to some of the same questions we had earlier. Oh well, it has been interesting.

__________________
rateyourmusic

cardboard adolescent

What is a perfect society? What does it mean for our species to advance? For either of those concepts to make sense you already need a definition of morality, and so you can't get that morality from the idea of a perfect society. The point for God is the exact same though! What is a perfect being? Morality leads you to the idea of a perfect being, rather than the other way around. In your case, since you've rejected the idea of a perfect being, it instead leads to a perfect entity, society. So you're again stuck in a closed loop, morality is justified because it brings us closer to a perfect society, but what a perfect society is is defined by morality. But I've just shown that God puts us in the same closed loop, so what gives? To get out, you have to assume a God who sits outside the circle. But how do you get morality from this God? That's the wrong question to be asking, because you don't get morality from God, you get God from morality. If there is no God, there is nothing "higher" than the individual human being. Even society, which is just an abstraction, is something which can only exist in the individual human mind, and has no way of being higher than him. As an abstraction, God plays the same role as society, but the difference is that God is taken to actually exist, in a form "higher" than that of the human being.

cardboard adolescent

thank you all for indulging me, and this has to be the longest online debate i've ever been a part of that has involved absolutely no trash talking (despite our differing views on morality, we must all be pretty good people )