Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)

    If anything, Atheists are more likely to be more morally right due to their judgement not being clouded by an irrational view that an all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful being is watching them every time they so much as twitch a muscle.
    i dont understand how that would make an atheist more morally right!!!

    the concept and belief that God is watching us all the time, if anything, makes a human being a better person...because there are things like backbiting, watching pornography etc. which a person does freely but knowing that he will be accounted for everything he does, does limit the person from doing wrong/immoral acts...

    Actually it is the belief in the hereafter (afterlife) is what straightens the character of a person in many ways...because in this life, only physical law is complete, you jump off a cliff you are likely to suffer, you put your hand on fire it will be burned, but moral law is not complete, you lie and nothing happens to your tongue, etc...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Artekus)
    I think Morality (capital M ) is essentially self-interest, as we all have a vested interest in procuring and maintaining a stable society. Our actual morals are to some extent transient, the product of our own age, but each expresses a current concern as to what will harm and subvert society at large. We all have an in-built desire not to rock the boat if you will, since we're all in it!

    You get the biggies like murder and dishonesty which seem universal frowned upon by all human civilisation, but then you also have the contingent ones like sex=sin and so on. Everything has to be taken in its own context.
    relying purely on self-interest while doing something can become a highly immoral act in some instances....

    and what if a certain act has a split opinion on it within the same society, some viewing it as immoral and some being ok with it? who would be the ultimate judge? even if such a case is taken to court, the judge might be biased because of his own views!!!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missmourk)
    For an atheist, morality is a fluid concept. To ask whether an atheist's moral code changes over time is simply ignorance: by definition, an atheist does not believe in a supreme power. That means God, an eternal moral code...or otherwise.

    Whereas religious people must accept that a God-given, rigid moral code outlines 'the good life', an atheist must make his or her own decision regarding what the 'good' is. An atheist's moral code, therefore, is in definition with their view of the good. This may be adherence to common law, for instance, or the Utilitarian solution.
    but common law might be unjust because after all it is made up by human beings..

    same can be said of what an atheist thinks is good, someone else might view it as bad!! so what is the solution...

    God given moral code is not rigid but firm and just....
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RiddleMeThis)
    In the end, not needing to abide by a moral code is going to benefit me.
    but this in turn is not beneficial for a society, if each person thinks this way, then it will create more problems than solving them
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    but this in turn is not beneficial for a society, if each person thinks this way, then it will create more problems than solving them
    until society see's it this way I will have an advantage
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CityOfMyHeart)

    The point is, we all get our morals from somewhere, we're not born with them. We're taught them/make our own as we get older. But most (again not all) of the ones we're taught are based losely on religious ideas of some sort- for example, 'do not kill'. You could argue this forever.
    disagree,

    we are born wit certain morals, a little kid, even if no one ever teaches him anything yet, knows that stealing is wrong!! how did he know?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by You Failed)

    Your example was terrible, not only is having sex in front of the public illegal, it's can also be considered offensive to the people who are exposed to it and since it's in public, you're also exposing young children to it. Nowhere do you have to consider the morals of a higher being to conclude that it's indecent and wrong.

    I maintain that all situations can be given a moral tag of right or wrong based on factors that do not include the opinions of a so called "higher being".
    i dont think my argument was stupid at all, maybe the example i gave was not sufficient, i can give other examples...a mother whose husband died and starts having sex with other men, now that would be moral and ok for her, but what about her children? there will always be a flaw in man made morals as conflict will arise, that is why a God given moral code works best for society
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RiddleMeThis)
    until society see's it this way I will have an advantage
    well then you should be ok with someone raping your mother/sister/wife/daughter because it was beneficial for him and he was able to get away with it...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    well then you should be ok with someone raping your mother/sister/wife/daughter because it was beneficial for him and he was able to get away with it...
    If society was as I proposed, without morals, I would be ok with it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Do not really see the connection morality - religion. Are you saying that not believing in a god leaves you with no moral values at all? Moral values are made by society, not som god. Some moral values change when further research in the subject is made. Others when new technology is introduced.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How do we even define what morality is? The closes I can think of would be a beneficial code we all agree to live by because the benefits outweigh the costs of doing so.

    Of course these values have changed over time as the needs and concerns of society have changed. It’s just a pity it takes so long for people to change their views as well.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    disagree,

    we are born wit certain morals, a little kid, even if no one ever teaches him anything yet, knows that stealing is wrong!! how did he know?
    If I can show you that this is false, will you promise to stop posting here forever?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hippopothomas)
    How do we even define what morality is? The closes I can think of would be a beneficial code we all agree to live by because the benefits outweigh the costs of doing so.

    Of course these values have changed over time as the needs and concerns of society have changed. It’s just a pity it takes so long for people to change their views as well.
    I think prescriptive actions that we should do for the benefit of others to be prescribed in a universal way regardless of our personal feelings towards such people would be the best definition of what morality is. And how do we come to these conclusions of what the best prescription should be you might ask?
    Take situation Y and look at the individuals as any individual that may be in their situation (to remove emotions you have toward them) then apply how you feel each one should act, finally which ever individual you are in that situation you would to be a moral agent have to act in the way you prescribed. (This is universal prescriptivism basically, by R.M.Hare, it takes into account morality being different, and can't properly be defined in terms of realism, irrealism, deontological, consequentialist etc. He chooses descriptivism and non descriptivism to show it. Saying descriptivism feels moral facts can be described and only described, non descriptivism they can't be, depending on the theory, this could be because they don't exist or not).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    disagree,

    we are born wit certain morals, a little kid, even if no one ever teaches him anything yet, knows that stealing is wrong!! how did he know?
    If ForeverIsMyName can show you that this is false, will you promise to stop posting here forever?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    disagree,

    we are born wit certain morals, a little kid, even if no one ever teaches him anything yet, knows that stealing is wrong!! how did he know?
    Wow, are you being serious?

    Babies aren't born with a sense of right or wrong. They have no concept of 'stealing' or what stealing is. As they get older, they become more socially aware and so might realise that they shouldn't take something from someone else, but saying that we're born with a 'no-stealing' moral is ********.

    Hell, they're not even fully aware of themselves until they're about 8 months old, let alone anyone else. They have no idea about 'ownership' of items or social norms until they're much older. Maybe you should look into child development further and then see what conclusion you come to.

    I'm not having a go, I just think it's wrong (:p:) to assume things are they way they are because of what your religion says (if that's what you're going by). There's no harm in looking into things yourself.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    i dont think my argument was stupid at all, maybe the example i gave was not sufficient, i can give other examples...a mother whose husband died and starts having sex with other men, now that would be moral and ok for her, but what about her children? there will always be a flaw in man made morals as conflict will arise, that is why a God given moral code works best for society
    No. Your argument is still stupid. What do you mean what about her children? Do you honestly think that a woman, who has children and later gets a divorce, should never ever sleep with another man again? How ludicrous. Again there is a simple answer that requires no great insight from some higher being - If the woman chooses to sleep with other men, when she knows doing so may hurt the children whos father has just left (or vice versa) then she simply shouldn't tell the children until they are ready or if she can help it, shouldn't have relations with someone until she feels the the children have sufficiently gotten over the trauma of having their parents split up.

    You have yet to provide any sort of proof that morals need to be dictated by a higher being and you have yet to provide any sort of example that supports this. You won't find a proof either because it doesn't exist. All morals can and are reasoned without the need for intervention from some 'God'.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CityOfMyHeart)
    Wow, are you being serious?

    Babies aren't born with a sense of right or wrong. They have no concept of 'stealing' or what stealing is. As they get older, they become more socially aware and so might realise that they shouldn't take something from someone else, but saying that we're born with a 'no-stealing' moral is ********.

    Hell, they're not even fully aware of themselves until they're about 8 months old, let alone anyone else. They have no idea about 'ownership' of items or social norms until they're much older. Maybe you should look into child development further and then see what conclusion you come to.

    I'm not having a go, I just think it's wrong (:p:) to assume things are they way they are because of what your religion says (if that's what you're going by). There's no harm in looking into things yourself.
    Having said that, I do think that "don't kill your own species" is present at birth. Animals know not to kill / eat each other even though they have no concept of "alive".

    I think our sense of what is right and wrong is a combination of things present at birth and social norms. The former are the things necessary for a species to survive and won't change over relatively short periods of time. The latter vary through time and place.

    Religion has made statements on some of them but they were specific to that time and place and have no relevance today. It's completely ridiculous to treat religion as an absolute guide to what is good and bad. It's also completely ridiculous to think that having no gray areas in your moral code makes yours "better" as essentially what you're saying is "I believe social norms should be treated as global absolutes". Then you wonder why it all falls flat when you mix with another culture.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What an absurd article, you speak as if morality is a definite thing, its not as if all religious types have the same conception of morality so why assume all atheists do?
    Our most solid base of morality is human rights, from there onwards its a question of interpretation both between what the law deems right and wrong and what you deem right and wrong. This is the nearest thing we have to an omniscient overseeing god who is able to decide in every given occasion what is the right thing to do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    What are it's limits? Do they change with time? Are they relative? Do they differ from place to place?

    Yes there might be some things which do not change like stealing, murder, etc..

    but as far as I know premarital sex was wrong/immoral/unethical some time ago in almost every secular society...but now it has become some sort of a norm.
    this is just an example...

    so what is morality for an atheist?
    morality is inherently subjective.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SsEe)
    Having said that, I do think that "don't kill your own species" is present at birth. Animals know not to kill / eat each other even though they have no concept of "alive".

    I think our sense of what is right and wrong is a combination of things present at birth and social norms. The former are the things necessary for a species to survive and won't change over relatively short periods of time. The latter vary through time and place.

    Religion has made statements on some of them but they were specific to that time and place and have no relevance today. It's completely ridiculous to treat religion as an absolute guide to what is good and bad. It's also completely ridiculous to think that having no gray areas in your moral code makes yours "better" as essentially what you're saying is "I believe social norms should be treated as global absolutes". Then you wonder why it all falls flat when you mix with another culture.
    I was actually going to mention the 'don't kill your own species' thing but I was in a rush this morning! You can look at it two ways;

    1) As a baby/child, you're dependant on those who look after you, so it's common sense not to kill them, otherwise you'd be screwed too. Also, bonds develop and feelings form, so whilst you could argue that we're born knowing not to kill our own kind, you could say that it's a mixture of other things too.

    2) You could kill your own species - it depends on where you live in the world. In the UK, it'd be horrific if you were to kill your own parents or siblings or whatever, but (say) in tribal communities in small, secluded forest areas, killing someone from your family may not be as big a deal, if you get me.

    (I'm about to go off on one..) If that community was very alpha-male orientated, then fights between the strongest men could happen and the weakest could be killed. The weakest one could be the oldest (ie. the father) or just another male in the tribe (which could be the brother) - in which case, killing them isn't a :eek: thing, but rather just a fact of life.

    What I'm trying to say is, whilst we probably are born with some awareness of our 'own kind' which bonds us to them, and thus makes us nottt want to kill them, we're free to go our own way.

    And I agree with the stuff you said about religion. I can't believe some people take it so literally. Yes, believe in God and belief in the teachings of your religion if you must, but keep an open mind, God damn.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.