Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkened Angel)
    There is no 'ought' in morality. Your discussion makes no sense. You're still trying to find a substitute to God, there isn't any in atheism, you need to learn to let go of this.
    So you're conceding that there is no "ought" morality in atheism?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    The debate I'm having with her is different to the one I'm having with you.

    To clarify my position, only an "ought" morality is a morality. Any explanation of how people act and the causes of that action is not, in my view, a moral system.
    Moralities as observed scientifically are not "explanations". If anything, they are the "ought" moralities that you desire. For instance, we have observed that if a trolley is heading toward 5 people and you can push a fat guy to stop the trolley, most peoples' moralities say they "ought" not to push the fat guy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    That's an explanation of why our morality is how it is, and not a justification of how it ought to be. You can't derive the latter from the former, and without an "ought", you have no morality.
    Wow, sorry I really don't follow you there. I wasn't trying to justify how morality 'ought to be'. Who am I to say what morality should or should not be?

    'ought' moralities commit the naturalistic falacy, because something is 'good' we ought
    to act in this way.

    If that isn't what you mean, well you'll have to articulate it differently.

    Otherwise you havn't made any sense to me:confused:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Bachelor)
    Moralities as observed scientifically are not "explanations". If anything, they are the "ought" moralities that you desire. For instance, we have observed that if a trolley is heading toward 5 people and you can push a fat guy to stop the trolley, most peoples' moralities say they "ought" not to push the fat guy.
    (Do they? I would say most people are subconsciously utilitarian.)

    They aren't moralities. They're just patterns of behaviour. We can explain them and where they originate from, but we can't justify them. They cannot, therefore, become moralities.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypnotic_Me)
    Wow, sorry I really don't follow you there. I wasn't trying to justify how morality 'ought to be'. Who am I to say what morality should or should not be?

    If that isn't what you mean, well you'll have to articulate it differently.

    Otherwise you havn't made any sense to me:confused:
    See my most recent post to the Bachelor. A morality has to be justified for it to be a morality. What you did in your earlier post about evolution and social co-operation (I believe) was analysing patterns of behaviour and not morality.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    (Do they?
    Yes they do. Go google up the trolley problem.

    (Original post by shamrock92)
    They aren't moralities. They're just patterns of behaviour. We can explain them and where they originate from, but we can't justify them. They cannot, therefore, become moralities.
    Actually, they're not really patterns of behavior, in the sense that people haven't actually behaved this way. For obvious reasons, social scientists don't actually tie 5 people in front of trolleys to see how people react.

    Anyways, we can't "weaoiwegoijweogjo" them? Damn it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Bachelor)
    Yes they do. Go google up the trolley problem.
    I'm skeptical as to whether in that situation people wouldn't turn the trolley. In fact, it doesn't make sense from a biological perspective - clearly, the most efficient way to propagate the species would be to preserve life maximally. Surely our genes would have instructed us to follow that dictum?

    (Original post by The Bachelor)
    Actually, they're not really patterns of behavior, in the sense that people haven't actually behaved this way. For obvious reasons, social scientists don't actually tie 5 people in front of trolleys to see how people react.
    Yes they are. They are patterns of behaviour wherein we engage as a result of whatever conditions our genes have bestowed upon us.

    (Original post by The Bachelor)
    Anyways, we can't "weaoiwegoijweogjo" them? Damn it.
    That's a pathetic get-out clause. You know exactly what a justification is. Don't pretend "it's not rigourously defined enough - nur-nurny-nur-nur!"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    (Do they? I would say most people are subconsciously utilitarian.)

    They aren't moralities. They're just patterns of behaviour. We can explain them and where they originate from, but we can't justify them. They cannot, therefore, become moralities.
    But by this token, could you not say that because people do act in a verifiable way, that there could be a moral undertone affecting as to why this pattern exists.

    From what you're saying, it seems that you don't think there is any such thing as morality, just different people acting in different ways depending on their life, influences they've been subject to and the environment in which they live.

    (Please do correct me if I'm wrong.)

    Seems to me you're taking the same sort of stance as Ludwig Wittgenstein

    Rules of life are dressed up in pictures. And these pictures can only serve to describe what we are to do, not justify it. Because they could provide a justification only if they held good in other respects as well. I can say: "Thank these bees for their honey as though they were kind people who have prepared it for you"; that is intelligible and describes how I should like you to conduct yourself. But I cannot say: "Thank them because, look, how kind they are!"--since the next moment they may sting you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypnotic_Me)
    But by this token, could you not say that because people do act in a verifiable way, that there could be a moral undertone affecting as to why this pattern exists.
    Sorry?

    (Original post by Hypnotic_Me)
    From what you're saying, it seems that you don't think there is any such thing as morality, just different people acting in different ways depending on their life, influences they've been subject to and the environment in which they live.
    Correct.

    (Original post by Hypnotic_Me)
    Seems to me you're taking the same sort of stance as Ludwig Wittgenstein
    Sort of. I like Hume more on this issue:

    In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, that expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    I'm skeptical as to whether in that situation people wouldn't turn the trolley. In fact, it doesn't make sense from a biological perspective - clearly, the most efficient way to propagate the species would be to preserve life maximally. Surely our genes would have instructed us to follow that dictum?
    Google is your friend.

    (Original post by shamrock92)
    Yes they are. They are patterns of behaviour wherein we engage as a result of whatever conditions our genes have bestowed upon us.
    No, because people have not actually behaved this way... yet.

    (Original post by shamrock92)
    That's a pathetic get-out clause. You know exactly what a justification is. Don't pretend "it's not rigourously defined enough - nur-nurny-nur-nur!"
    I know what a justification is. What is not well-defined is what makes a morality justified.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Bachelor)
    Google is your friend.
    I don't believe it :huff:

    (Original post by The Bachelor)
    No, because people have not actually behaved this way... yet.
    So we just need more time for this adaptation to play out! How convenient.

    (Original post by The Bachelor)
    I know what a justification is. What is not well-defined is what makes a morality justified.
    The premises have to be true and the argument valid for a conclusion about an "ought" action.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "But by this token, could you not say that because people do act in a verifiable way, that there could be a moral undertone affecting as to why this pattern exists."

    By this I meant:
    You describe some actions (seen by some to be moral actions) as purely patterns of people's behaviour. I was suggesting that perhaps these patterns of behaviour occur in the first place because they are making a choice to act morally.

    However, after some thought I agree with you. People fabricate what it is to be moral from biological reasons genes aqcuired through evolution and psychological evolution also. i.e. where it originates from.

    That can be the only solution for me as to where morals come from, and why we follow them; simply because they seem right to us because we can see obvious advantages to follow them.

    As you have already quite rightly said, the only thing that comes close to justifying morals is through our inner need to preserve the species.

    good argument.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypnotic_Me)
    "But by this token, could you not say that because people do act in a verifiable way, that there could be a moral undertone affecting as to why this pattern exists."

    By this I meant:
    You describe some actions (seen by some to be moral actions) as purely patterns of people's behaviour. I was suggesting that perhaps these patterns of behaviour occur in the first place because they are making a choice to act morally.

    However, after some thought I agree with you. People fabricate what it is to be moral from biological reasons genes aqcuired through evolution and psychological evolution also. i.e. where it originates from.

    That can be the only solution for me as to where morals come from, and why we follow them; simply because they seem right to us because we can see obvious advantages to follow them.

    As you have already quite rightly said, the only thing that comes close to justifying morals is through our inner need to preserve the species.

    good argument.
    'Tis an excellent summary of my point (though I don't think an instinct for self-preservation is an adequate justification for why one should be "moral" - it's merely an explanation of why we do be "moral".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    So we just need more time for this adaptation to play out! How convenient.
    Nope. There never was any "behavioral trend", and hopefully there never will be. Unless you want people actually to be tied to rails.

    (Original post by shamrock92)
    The premises have to be true and the argument valid for a conclusion about an "ought" action.
    "True" and "valid" then become the new "oewaifjoweijgowegj" words.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Bachelor)
    Nope. There never was any "behavioral trend", and hopefully there never will be. Unless you want people actually to be tied to rails.
    That's clearly false - people do talk about "right" and "wrong".

    (Original post by The Bachelor)
    "True" and "valid" then become the new "oewaifjoweijgowegj" words.
    "Truth" is indeed subjective. But that's a universal problem in Philosophy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    That's clearly false - people do talk about "right" and "wrong".
    Yet it doesn't have to be behavioral.



    "Truth" is indeed subjective. But that's a universal problem in Philosophy.
    I'm much more worried about "valid".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Originally Posted by Darkened Angel
    There is no 'ought' in morality. Your discussion makes no sense. You're still trying to find a substitute to God, there isn't any in atheism, you need to learn to let go of this
    Wow, this is very problematic. The discussion makes perfect sense, and has done for hundreds of years. Perhaps you should do a little more research into the matter because you're clearly not on the same wave length here.

    morality can be explained in terms of where it comes from, how its evolved and present within our culture. One way of doing this is via psychology and our genetic structure.

    What cannot be done (this is the ought part) is to justify WHY we do it.
    By suggesting that something is good (your natural inclination, i.e. don't kill people) you're implying that you ought to abide by this inclination.

    This is called the Naturalistic Falacy and it's a transitional error and THIS is what does not make sense.

    This is not to suggest that atheists do not have morals, of course that notion is ridiculous.

    Perhaps I've misunderstood you though, and you understand this argument completely, if so you have my apologies.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    the meaning of life is to give life a meaning.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    So you're conceding that there is no "ought" morality in atheism?
    No, there isn't. Morality is man-made and is relative to the individuals perception of it which is why it is not good enough. The law in the UK is there to make sure everyone receives their rights and are not negatively affected by others view of morality. Take homosexuals for example, there are many who view it as wrong and call it immoral but in a secular society they are entitled to their rights of freedom as they are not harming anybody. In an earlier discussion you said a rapist can be viewed on the same moral platform as helping an old lady cross the street. You are right in a sense but the rapist's morality is harming the rights of another individual which is where the law comes in to play.

    People have their own sense of morality but the law is there for everybody (well it is in a country where it doesn't abuse the rights of people).

    The main point is, everyone's life is valuable. Everyone has a right to their life as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Morality is not enough to ensure this as it is relative to the individual so a law must be implemented.

    I hope that made sense.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lazzarus)
    If you believe there is no god, then presumably you believe there is no heaven... what then is the point of life? If there is no moral reason to do or not do anything, and most desires are instincts to perpetuate this seemingly pointless phenomenon, why then do we bother?
    I enjoy my life, it's a fun life, you should be jealous of it, it's just THAT good
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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