Dawkin, Memes, and The Moral Atheist

[Sinner]

Lysia

Reiterate that please, your meaning is unclear.

Having no moral code is not worse than having a moral code. Therefore, it is better, since you are not having faith in a moral code.

How is that? I thought my previous post read smoothly, but it's difficult to tell when you're the one that wrote it.

[Lysia]

Sinner

Lysia

Reiterate that please, your meaning is unclear.

Having no moral code is not worse than having a moral code.

As far as I can tell, you're making a non-point.

The end is the same; whether I follow morals because of a sense of duty, or because I am cunningly manipulating society doesn't matter. What matters is the behaviour that I display.

In any case, you're assuming that people are rational, again.

[Tarrou]

Lysia

As far as I can tell, you're making a non-point.

The end is the same; whether I follow morals because of a sense of duty, or because I am cunningly manipulating society doesn't matter. What matters is the behaviour that I display.

In any case, you're assuming that people are rational, again.

Or, to put it another way, reasons are irrelevant to the issue. The only pertinant point is the resultant behavior.

[Triste Morningstar]

Lysia

Triste Morningstar

Now, since the results of living a life as an amoral person are no different from living as a moral person (and are often better for the individual, if the individual is smart enough to figure out how to properly manipulate our social system), why is morality beneficial? And again, why is it any different from religion? Since religions are often, in part, moral codes, why are religions bad but morals beneficial?

Because morality is something that has evolved utterly independent from religions. You are assuming several things about the nature of people that are utterly untrue;

a) They have no inbuilt sense of morality
b) They are rational
c) Because religion contains morality, it is therefore a reasonable question to ask if it is "any different".

C is an obvious fallacy of composition; because one thing contains another, does not make it equivalent.

... Yes, you're right, because I was unclear.

To clarify, how is a moral code (this moral code, much like a religion, being a phenotype or meme complex rather than a meme) any different from a religion?

Quote:

B you committed when you assume that people will do what they perceive directly benefits them most, when it is a documented fact that people are about as rational as bacon slicers.

Some people are more rational than others. I would recommend that stupid people have moral codes, to simplify things. But if you're intellegent enough to manipulate the system without having a moral code, why should you?

Quote:

A is something that would make an evolutionary psychologist scream; we are thinking animals that have evolved in a group. Behaviours that are destructive to groups, IE extreme selfishness and extreme anti-social behaviour has obviously been deselected. However, there is still an evolutionary pressure to breed; and therefore disruptions to the group on the small-scale (promiscuity, cheating and lying) have evolved otherwise. However, on the whole, people feel and inherent, irrational attachment to other people. If you want a truly rational outlook on other people, talk to a severely autistic person who has no theory of mind; he treats people as rational units, because he does not assume that they are like him.

So you are saying that morality is inbred into humans?

Perhaps to some extent, but are these inbred morals up to our societies standards? I mean, if there were no consequences to murder, do you think that people wouldn't murder each other if it was practical? Yes, some people are insane and murder each other because they are insane, but if people could murder and get away with it, and it would be a good idea to murder some person, do you think that they wouldn't?

[Lysia]

Triste Morningstar

So you are saying that morality is inbred into humans?

ROFL xd

You mean bred in, not inbred XD That suggests that having sex with your parents makes you a moral person :XP

Triste Morningstar

Perhaps to some extent, but are these inbred morals up to our societies standards? I mean, if there were no consequences to murder, do you think that people wouldn't murder each other if it was practical? Yes, some people are insane and murder each other because they are insane, but if people could murder and get away with it, and it would be a good idea to murder some person, do you think that they wouldn't?

Of course they patently aren't; if they were, do you think we would have crimes?

And indeed, some people are deficient in these. However, as a truly rational being, I would see no reason to behave either way; and so, in the end, I would probably give in to the irrational feelings of pleasure I get from being nice to people whee

NB: This is not to suggest that I get pleasure from being nice... some people would consider it being systematically NASTY domokun

[Sinner]

Lysia

As far as I can tell, you're making a non-point.

The end is the same; whether I follow morals because of a sense of duty, or because I am cunningly manipulating society doesn't matter. What matters is the behaviour that I display.

But my point was, as it was all along, to disprove your claim that a moral code was somehow something you needed to have faith in. I was objecting to that claim because it would disprove the claim made by Triste in the original post, which is that Dawkins was being hypocritical by supporting moral codes but not religion on the basis that religion relies upon faith.

Lysia

In any case, you're assuming that people are rational, again.

Well, I am assuming that, but only to an extent. So long as they are believe that they are acting the way that they are because of rational reasons, then I believe my defense stands.

But frankly, I'm a bit lost as to your point about rationality.

[Triste Morningstar]

Lysia

Triste Morningstar

So you are saying that morality is inbred into humans?

ROFL xd

You mean bred in, not inbred XD That suggests that having sex with your parents makes you a moral person :XP

... That did not just happen. OH MY GOD I SAID IT TWICE. eek

*mildly horrified* gonk

Quote:

Triste Morningstar

Perhaps to some extent, but are these inbred morals up to our societies standards? I mean, if there were no consequences to murder, do you think that people wouldn't murder each other if it was practical? Yes, some people are insane and murder each other because they are insane, but if people could murder and get away with it, and it would be a good idea to murder some person, do you think that they wouldn't?

Of course they patently aren't; if they were, do you think we would have crimes?

And indeed, some people are deficient in these. However, as a truly rational being, I would see no reason to behave either way; and so, in the end, I would probably give in to the irrational feelings of pleasure I get from being nice to people whee

NB: This is not to suggest that I get pleasure from being nice... some people would consider it being systematically NASTY domokun

But isn't the point of morality to be nice to people even if you really have no desire to, and get no pleasure from it? I mean, I spend time working in nursing homes and whatnot, and it's nice of me, but I'd really rather be at home sleeping.

... Inbred. xp Oh, this'll be one to tell the kids.

[Tarrou]

Sinner

But my point was, as it was all along, to disprove your claim that a moral code was somehow something you needed to have faith in. I was objecting to that claim because it would disprove the claim made by Triste in the original post, which is that Dawkins was being hypocritical by supporting moral codes but not religion on the basis that religion relies upon faith.

You are defining "moral" very strictly, Sinner. If I believe that I should not kill people, even if I have no faith in the inherant or God-given value of human life, but rather support it because it assures me that I, in turn, am less likley to be killed, is that still not a moral code? You're going to have to give us your definition of "moral" for your point to stand.

[Lysia]

Sinner

Lysia

In any case, you're assuming that people are rational, again.

Well, I am assuming that, but only to an extent. So long as they are believe that they are acting the way that they are because of rational reasons, then I believe my defense stands.

If I were a rational being, I would start by analysing everything I thought, and then carefully dissecting all my assumptions. I would try to minimise the amount of faith I place.

However, people do not do that. People obey their in-built "moral code" because there is an evolutionary reward for doing so; it is so dissociated from faith as to make the question meaningless. It's like asking if one has faith that having sex will make you happy; it's not a question that has any meaning, because the connection is not a rational one.

People, however, do (or at least, can) rationally consider their religious positions; and therefore this requires a conscious act of deliberate faith, rather than the simple fulfillment of inbuilt desires.

[Sinner]

Tangled Up In Blue

You are defining "moral" very strictly, Sinner. If I believe that I should not kill people, even if I have no faith in the inherant or God-given value of human life, but rather support it because it assures me that I, in turn, am less likley to be killed, is that still not a moral code?

No, it isn't.

I fail to see how you can even ask that. Haven't I repeatedly stated that amoral codes will often dictate the same actions as moral codes?

Tangled Up In Blue

You're going to have to give us your definition of "moral" for your point to stand.

Oh, nerts.

I don't have a set definition prepared. How about we toss around "A code which dictates that which is right and that which is wrong"?

[Sinner]

Lysia

If I were a rational being, I would start by analysing everything I thought, and then carefully dissecting all my assumptions. I would try to minimise the amount of faith I place.

However, people do not do that. People obey their in-built "moral code" because there is an evolutionary reward for doing so; it is so dissociated from faith as to make the question meaningless. It's like asking if one has faith that having sex will make you happy; it's not a question that has any meaning, because the connection is not a rational one.

People, however, do (or at least, can) rationally consider their religious positions; and therefore this requires a conscious act of deliberate faith, rather than the simple fulfillment of inbuilt desires.

I'm not arguing what people do, I'm arguing what people should do. What they are capable of doing, and within those parameters, what choices should be made.

I don't see how you can disassociate it from faith. If you believe it to be true, but not rationally, it is faith, is it not? Are you trying to argue that faith is only faith if one is concious that it is faith? Because that strikes me as remarkably flawed.

So simply saying that "People automatically take moral codes to be true without consideration" doesn't change the fact that moral codes must be taken on faith, and this makes Dawkins a hypocrite.

[Tarrou]

Sinner

No, it isn't.

I fail to see how you can even ask that. Haven't I repeatedly stated that amoral codes will often dictate the same actions as moral codes?

I've been at dinner. You'll excuse me if I haven't been following the whole converstation very closely. I just jumped back in.

Sinner

Oh, nerts.

I don't have a set definition prepared. How about we toss around "A code which dictates that which is right and that which is wrong"?

That which hurts me is wrong because it causes pain, which, from my point of view, can be objectively called "bad". Therefore, I support rules that say that people are not allowed to hurt me (and, for the sake of fairness, each other). That, although amoral in a several senses of the word fits your definition. Like I said, you're going to need to be more specific.

[Sinner]

Tangled Up In Blue

I've been at dinner. You'll excuse me if I haven't been following the whole converstation very closely. I just jumped back in.

Ah, righto.

Tangled Up In Blue

That which hurts me is wrong because it causes pain, which, from my point of view, can be objectively called "bad".

Ah, but not "wrong".

There is a distinction. It seems minor, but the words are not interchangeable in this situation.

Tangled Up In Blue

Therefore, I support rules that say that people are not allowed to hurt me (and, for the sake of fairness, each other). That, although amoral in a several senses of the word fits your definition.

First, the fairness thing is a moral reason, not an amoral one. However, you can substitute it for "So that the others will perceive it as fair" for the effect you were looking for.

You're right, that is an amoral code. I mean "right and wrong in the moral sense", but that falls short since I'm using the word "moral".

I really don't know right now. Do you see anything wrong with "A code which determines what one considers to be right or wrong, where right/wrong are defined in the sense not of being correct or incorrect, but of affecting one emotionally."

I don't know if that'll work, but I'm a bit distracted at the moment.

[Tarrou]

Might I suggest "A concept of right and wrong based on values not derived from self interest or social structure but on ideas stemming from strictly abstract, theorectical, and immaterial or divinely proscribed conceptions of ethics." Long-winded, to be sure, but I think it works.

[Sinner]

Tangled Up In Blue

Might I suggest "A concept of right and wrong based on values not derived from self interest or social structure but on ideas stemming from strictly abstract, theorectical, and immaterial or divinely proscribed conceptions of ethics." Long-winded, to be sure, but I think it works.

I'm not sure about the self-interest part. Can one not have a moral system which exists purely to benefit the self?

The rest of it sounds pretty solid, at least. I'm a little worried about even including ethics, but I doubt it can be avoided.