What is "morally wrong" without God?

[stealthmongoose]

Lucky~9~Lives

stealthmongoose

Lucky~9~Lives

Undecillion

First off, I consider myself an Atheist, and up until now, I haven't put much thought into the subject, but my question is as follows:

What specific/general guidelines would a nonreligious person use to determine what is morally wrong?

I've been thinking about this for about an hour and so far I've come up with:

"For something to be morally wrong, it needs to consequentially cause or contribute to
a significant detriment to others that outweigh any positive consequences."

I'm still trying to evaluate this and think of counter examples, but I'd like your input.

It seems like you've just shifted the problem rather than solving it i.e. how does one determine "significant detriment" and "positive consequence"?

I assert an example.

Do you like dying lucky? Does it seem like something preferable for you to experience death? Would you say that it is good to apply your views to the majority of living people?

I'd say that's a good foundation to start off with.

So, "morally wrong" is "something I don't like the sound of"?

Now ask everyone else around you the same.

Do they like the sound of dying?

You'll find some of them have come close to dying.

How many of those enjoyed the experience?

What about the ones that didn't come close to dying?

Show them some pictures of dead or dying people that you've come across while researching this (trust me, they exist).

Do they seem thrilled at the notion?

Does death seem like something that can bring pleasure in most cases?

If not, we can deduce that dying is something that usually causes or implies suffering in it's processes.

So when looking at right and wrong...i think it's fair to realize that death is one of those things worth avoiding, since it usually is surrounded by some form of suffering in almost all cases.

I assert that on the grounds of suffering, imposing death is an evil deed.

Of course, those without the capacity or will to critically think about it usually shut themselves off at the first step in favor of who knows what.

[CH1YO]

Undecillion

Also, if there is already some sort of school of philosophy that goes over this, I'd love to hear about it.

Most of them do.

In the absence of the divine the next highest (biggest) authority is society. The scripture is implicit but no less conservative for it.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

stealthmongoose

Lucky~9~Lives

stealthmongoose

Lucky~9~Lives

Undecillion

First off, I consider myself an Atheist, and up until now, I haven't put much thought into the subject, but my question is as follows:

What specific/general guidelines would a nonreligious person use to determine what is morally wrong?

I've been thinking about this for about an hour and so far I've come up with:

"For something to be morally wrong, it needs to consequentially cause or contribute to
a significant detriment to others that outweigh any positive consequences."

I'm still trying to evaluate this and think of counter examples, but I'd like your input.

It seems like you've just shifted the problem rather than solving it i.e. how does one determine "significant detriment" and "positive consequence"?

I assert an example.

Do you like dying lucky? Does it seem like something preferable for you to experience death? Would you say that it is good to apply your views to the majority of living people?

I'd say that's a good foundation to start off with.

So, "morally wrong" is "something I don't like the sound of"?

Now ask everyone else around you the same.

Do they like the sound of dying?

You'll find some of them have come close to dying.

How many of those enjoyed the experience?

What about the ones that didn't come close to dying?

Show them some pictures of dead or dying people that you've come across while researching this (trust me, they exist).

Do they seem thrilled at the notion?

Does death seem like something that can bring pleasure in most cases?

If not, we can deduce that dying is something that usually causes or implies suffering in it's processes.

So when looking at right and wrong...i think it's fair to realize that death is one of those things worth avoiding, since it usually is surrounded by some form of suffering in almost all cases.

I assert that on the grounds of suffering, imposing death is an evil deed.

Of course, those without the capacity or will to critically think about it usually shut themselves off at the first step in favor of who knows what.

So, "morally wrong" is "something believed to cause suffering"?

[stealthmongoose]

Lucky~9~Lives

stealthmongoose

Lucky~9~Lives

stealthmongoose

Lucky~9~Lives

Undecillion

First off, I consider myself an Atheist, and up until now, I haven't put much thought into the subject, but my question is as follows:

What specific/general guidelines would a nonreligious person use to determine what is morally wrong?

I've been thinking about this for about an hour and so far I've come up with:

"For something to be morally wrong, it needs to consequentially cause or contribute to
a significant detriment to others that outweigh any positive consequences."

I'm still trying to evaluate this and think of counter examples, but I'd like your input.

It seems like you've just shifted the problem rather than solving it i.e. how does one determine "significant detriment" and "positive consequence"?

I assert an example.

Do you like dying lucky? Does it seem like something preferable for you to experience death? Would you say that it is good to apply your views to the majority of living people?

I'd say that's a good foundation to start off with.

So, "morally wrong" is "something I don't like the sound of"?

Now ask everyone else around you the same.

Do they like the sound of dying?

You'll find some of them have come close to dying.

How many of those enjoyed the experience?

What about the ones that didn't come close to dying?

Show them some pictures of dead or dying people that you've come across while researching this (trust me, they exist).

Do they seem thrilled at the notion?

Does death seem like something that can bring pleasure in most cases?

If not, we can deduce that dying is something that usually causes or implies suffering in it's processes.

So when looking at right and wrong...i think it's fair to realize that death is one of those things worth avoiding, since it usually is surrounded by some form of suffering in almost all cases.

I assert that on the grounds of suffering, imposing death is an evil deed.

Of course, those without the capacity or will to critically think about it usually shut themselves off at the first step in favor of who knows what.

So, "morally wrong" is "something believed to cause suffering"?

The same way "My argument" is "that bit you chose to look at", yes.

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

vwytche

negative and positive outcomes are going to be weighed by each individuals yardstick. For an animal to give it's life for a human to eat is acceptable losses to the human. To the animal, not so much.

There is no good or evil. These are just concepts we invented to allow ourselves to look in the mirror. What is morally right is decided by group consensus or mandate by the ruling body and then the gods are depicted as backing it up.

So, slavery is neither right nor wrong, except by convention?

Wouldn't want you running my state.

[--Urrg--]

The Golden Rule always works.

[CH1YO]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

vwytche

negative and positive outcomes are going to be weighed by each individuals yardstick. For an animal to give it's life for a human to eat is acceptable losses to the human. To the animal, not so much.

There is no good or evil. These are just concepts we invented to allow ourselves to look in the mirror. What is morally right is decided by group consensus or mandate by the ruling body and then the gods are depicted as backing it up.

So, slavery is neither right nor wrong, except by convention?

Wouldn't want you running my state.

Such an ideology prevents the running of a state.

[vwytche]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

vwytche

negative and positive outcomes are going to be weighed by each individuals yardstick. For an animal to give it's life for a human to eat is acceptable losses to the human. To the animal, not so much.

There is no good or evil. These are just concepts we invented to allow ourselves to look in the mirror. What is morally right is decided by group consensus or mandate by the ruling body and then the gods are depicted as backing it up.

So, slavery is neither right nor wrong, except by convention?

Wouldn't want you running my state.

There is always a food chain in every society and there will always be those that are at the bottom of it. Consider this, a slave is housed, clothed and fed by their master. If this master is a wise individual s/he will care for their property well. We love to swallow the PC sob stories about human beings being worked to death with poor nourishment and conditions. This is logically crap. You wouldn't treat a valuable piece of property that way anymore thna you would a horse, a car or a house.

By contrast today our lowest rung lives off of welfare from a state that pays them to make babies they can't afford to care for.

Which is the greater "evil"? For tax payers to support all the folks that just don't feel like working (bless their hearts) with no recompence, or for individuals to work for their own keep? Before you answer consider that w/ the econmy the way it is employers are putting a strangle hold on their employees. They dictate how they can dress, their personal appearance, read their private emails, require various parking passes, unirforms, testing, ect for which they are the only source and then charge a fee for providing it. Think about it.

You can always work somewhere else? Sure, IF you can find another job. You're free to quit and take the risk, and a slave is free to run and take the risk.

The fact is any morally repugnant thing you care to look at was considered just fine and dandy in another time and place. All that changes is peoples views on it. But on a cosmic scale of what is right or wrong as far as the universe is concerned? nah The universe doesn't give a rip. Only we do, then we pretend the universe feels the way we do about it b/c it pads our sense of rightness.

BTW, I wouldn't want to be running the state. Too many whiney special interest groups wanting things done their way. Let me control a planets air supply, and I won't care who makes the laws. twisted

[Lucky~9~Lives]

stealthmongoose

Lucky~9~Lives

stealthmongoose

Lucky~9~Lives

stealthmongoose

I assert an example.

Do you like dying lucky? Does it seem like something preferable for you to experience death? Would you say that it is good to apply your views to the majority of living people?

I'd say that's a good foundation to start off with.

So, "morally wrong" is "something I don't like the sound of"?

Now ask everyone else around you the same.

Do they like the sound of dying?

You'll find some of them have come close to dying.

How many of those enjoyed the experience?

What about the ones that didn't come close to dying?

Show them some pictures of dead or dying people that you've come across while researching this (trust me, they exist).

Do they seem thrilled at the notion?

Does death seem like something that can bring pleasure in most cases?

If not, we can deduce that dying is something that usually causes or implies suffering in it's processes.

So when looking at right and wrong...i think it's fair to realize that death is one of those things worth avoiding, since it usually is surrounded by some form of suffering in almost all cases.

I assert that on the grounds of suffering, imposing death is an evil deed.

Of course, those without the capacity or will to critically think about it usually shut themselves off at the first step in favor of who knows what.

So, "morally wrong" is "something believed to cause suffering"?

The same way "My argument" is "that bit you chose to look at", yes.

That's all your argument boils down to - morality derived from what is believed to be an encounter with/avoidance of suffering. Kind of like hedonism.

[Undecillion]

Lucky~9~Lives

Undecillion

First off, I consider myself an Atheist, and up until now, I haven't put much thought into the subject, but my question is as follows:

What specific/general guidelines would a nonreligious person use to determine what is morally wrong?

I've been thinking about this for about an hour and so far I've come up with:

"For something to be morally wrong, it needs to consequentially cause or contribute to
a significant detriment to others that outweigh any positive consequences."

I'm still trying to evaluate this and think of counter examples, but I'd like your input.

It seems like you've just shifted the problem rather than solving it i.e. how does one determine "significant detriment" and "positive consequence"?

Well, when the initial problem is "How is "morally wrong" determined" and a vague guideline is given, I'd say that's a step in the right direction.

As I said before, it's an incomplete thought requiring more adjustments. However, at this point all that there seems to be left to do is come up with a practical definition of the word "significant".

And I would assume that the word "positive" in this case could mean something beneficial gained or saved.

Either way, I wouldn't consider it a terrible thing for some of this should be determined on an individual basis. I see a problem with 100% absolute rules governing subjectivity.

[B1g_crunch]

To me, evil is defined by going along with and even contributing to entropy and the natural order of decay, as well as acting on reckless selfishness without concern for the welfare of other.

[stealthmongoose]

Lucky~9~Lives

stealthmongoose

Lucky~9~Lives

stealthmongoose

Lucky~9~Lives

stealthmongoose

I assert an example.

Do you like dying lucky? Does it seem like something preferable for you to experience death? Would you say that it is good to apply your views to the majority of living people?

I'd say that's a good foundation to start off with.

So, "morally wrong" is "something I don't like the sound of"?

Now ask everyone else around you the same.

Do they like the sound of dying?

You'll find some of them have come close to dying.

How many of those enjoyed the experience?

What about the ones that didn't come close to dying?

Show them some pictures of dead or dying people that you've come across while researching this (trust me, they exist).

Do they seem thrilled at the notion?

Does death seem like something that can bring pleasure in most cases?

If not, we can deduce that dying is something that usually causes or implies suffering in it's processes.

So when looking at right and wrong...i think it's fair to realize that death is one of those things worth avoiding, since it usually is surrounded by some form of suffering in almost all cases.

I assert that on the grounds of suffering, imposing death is an evil deed.

Of course, those without the capacity or will to critically think about it usually shut themselves off at the first step in favor of who knows what.

So, "morally wrong" is "something believed to cause suffering"?

The same way "My argument" is "that bit you chose to look at", yes.

That's all your argument boils down to - morality derived from what is believed to be an encounter with/avoidance of suffering. Kind of like hedonism.

Isn't hedonism strictly self-focused?

Ethically speaking, a morally good person would try to reduce the amount of suffering to himself and others as much as possible.

A morally evil person would try to propogate said suffering within others and perhaps themselves.

Also, does suffering not exist? Is it an unreasonable factor from which to derive morality and the axiom of good/evil?

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Undecillion

Lucky~9~Lives

Undecillion

First off, I consider myself an Atheist, and up until now, I haven't put much thought into the subject, but my question is as follows:

What specific/general guidelines would a nonreligious person use to determine what is morally wrong?

I've been thinking about this for about an hour and so far I've come up with:

"For something to be morally wrong, it needs to consequentially cause or contribute to
a significant detriment to others that outweigh any positive consequences."

I'm still trying to evaluate this and think of counter examples, but I'd like your input.

It seems like you've just shifted the problem rather than solving it i.e. how does one determine "significant detriment" and "positive consequence"?

Well, when the initial problem is "How is "morally wrong" determined" and a vague guideline is given, I'd say that's a step in the right direction.

As I said before, it's an incomplete thought requiring more adjustments. However, at this point all that there seems to be left to do is come up with a practical definition of the word "significant".

And I would assume that the word "positive" in this case could mean something beneficial gained or saved.

That's just repeating the process, though - how does one determine "beneficial"?

stealthmongoose

Lucky~9~Lives

That's all your argument boils down to - morality derived from what is believed to be an encounter with/avoidance of suffering. Kind of like hedonism.

Isn't hedonism strictly self-focused?

I don't think it necessarily has to be.

stealthmongoose

Also, does suffering not exist? Is it an unreasonable factor from which to derive morality and the axiom of good/evil?

Axioms, by definition, precede reasoning.

[stealthmongoose]

Lucky~9~Lives

Undecillion

Lucky~9~Lives

Undecillion

First off, I consider myself an Atheist, and up until now, I haven't put much thought into the subject, but my question is as follows:

What specific/general guidelines would a nonreligious person use to determine what is morally wrong?

I've been thinking about this for about an hour and so far I've come up with:

"For something to be morally wrong, it needs to consequentially cause or contribute to
a significant detriment to others that outweigh any positive consequences."

I'm still trying to evaluate this and think of counter examples, but I'd like your input.

It seems like you've just shifted the problem rather than solving it i.e. how does one determine "significant detriment" and "positive consequence"?

Well, when the initial problem is "How is "morally wrong" determined" and a vague guideline is given, I'd say that's a step in the right direction.

As I said before, it's an incomplete thought requiring more adjustments. However, at this point all that there seems to be left to do is come up with a practical definition of the word "significant".

And I would assume that the word "positive" in this case could mean something beneficial gained or saved.

That's just repeating the process, though - how does one determine "beneficial"?

stealthmongoose

Lucky~9~Lives

That's all your argument boils down to - morality derived from what is believed to be an encounter with/avoidance of suffering. Kind of like hedonism.

Isn't hedonism strictly self-focused?

I don't think it necessarily has to be.

stealthmongoose

Also, does suffering not exist? Is it an unreasonable factor from which to derive morality and the axiom of good/evil?

Axioms, by definition, precede reasoning.

You're right, especially on the point of Axioms.

I've edited my previous reply with a video to support my claims and my assertions.

I was wrong in the message my post was sending, and reading it over i think i came off as subtlely implying that morality was a majority vote.

If this is the case, i'd request you view the video to clarify my stance.