Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neruz]

What is a "disadvantage" then? Is death a disadvantage? Not to everyone, since some even seek it. Advantages and disadvantages are very subjective, hence why crime still exists: obviously for some, the disadvantage of the risk of being caught is less than the advantage of easy money. The weighing is purely rational (as far as we can be), but the initial values of what is advantageous and to what amount is emotional.

Thus we get back to my point that there are lots of stupid people in the world.

To take the car analogy: We'll assume that somewhere in your life you decided you REALLY don't want to be run over by a car. Every time you cross the road you don't need to revive that emotion of fear, you already know it's there, and will take the effort of looking both ways to make sure you won't be run over.

Ovbiously my survival instinct tells me that dying would be a bad idea, and also ovbiously i don't enjoy pain. Being hit by a car means the first is quite likely, and the second is pretty much certain. Ergo being hit by a car is something i would like to avoid.

From a purely rational standpoint, if i die, it's over, so there's not really any advantage in dying. As for pain, pain gets in the way, it distracts and detracts from me (not the least of which being it is pain, and thus painful.)


I'm not saying that emotions aren't involved somewhere down the line, what i am saying is that Fear is not a part of my decision-making process. In the past made decisions that went entirely against the Fear line of reasoning; doing the thing that i was in fact afraid of because i realised that it was the rational course of action.


Again: No emotions are required. Do i fear death? Of course. Is fear a neccessary componant for me to avoid death? Nope.



You guys seem to be moving the goalposts again, allow me to requote the passage i am arguing against:

The problem with Atheism is that, without a unifying philosophical force, one does not have a moral directive with which to do "the right thing."

...


Consider this, who is more likely to murder? The man that fears the retribution of the law (assuming he is not in a position to *make* law), or the man who fears the law *and* eternal punishment from a deity/pantheon?

The answer is obvious.

[Siquo]

Neruz, you lack empathy, and even the ability to acknowledge that other people might hold different opinions. And if they do, they are "obviously" stupid. How would I know you dislike pain? I know people who like certain types of pain. I cannot know you aren't one of them.

Your dislike of pain is emotional, not rational. Pain can help clear your mind instead of being distractive. So is the "disadvantage" of death. "Advantage" is a value you connect to "being alive" and "not having pain", but it is YOU who does that, not some absolute objective universal value-making-logic.

Also, there are no goalposts, as there are no goals to be scored and no game to be won.

[Urist McOverlord]

Yeah. I think the point we're trying to make is that the emotion comes into it not during the evaluation (e-value-ation), but when deciding what to consider in the first place.

That said, I'm with you in disagreement with Kuraudo's original point. However, it isn't that fear doesn't play into the decision-making process, but instead that fear is not the only factor, and is in fact one of the weaker ones.

Back on topic, though:
Fear of divine retribution is an inherently weak motivation for moral action, because:
A) Divine retribution generally tends to happen after what we generally know to be "the end."
B) We have no real evidence that said retribution ever actually occurs. We don't get to visit relatives having a stint in hell.
C) Retribution itself is rarely a strong motivator. Even fear of legal retribution (which avoids many of the aforementioned problems) is ineffective to the point that those who do do right from fear will still do wrong if they believe they can get away with it. Retributive justice is only as effective as those enforcing it, and with divine retributive justice, we really don't have anything but our own faith, and the word of clergymen that it's ever going to happen.

I'd say that values (defined as "an ideal accepted by some individual or group") and ideals (defined as "a principle or value that one actively pursues as a goal") that form the core of any moral decision-making process. In so much as we value not being imprisoned, the fear of punishment can motivate us. But that is a rather weak value, as easily evidenced by the scores of people who commit actions that get them sent to prison each year. And considering we have clear evidence, in the form of visible prisons, clear knowledge that many criminals are caught, and (in many cases) knowledge of some of the processes by which it occurs, this is far stronger than a vague threat of eternal suffering from a potential omnipotent diety.

Of course, maybe I'm just applying my skeptical eye to the whole thing. I'm sure a true believer wouldn't need evidence to support their belief (as has already been mentioned in this thread at least a dozen times).

[Siquo]

I agree with you Urist, but... Morals are not instantiated by fear, but by a sense of what is "right". It's not the promise of hell which usually stops people from doing wrong, it's the sense of what is right, and the idea heaven, what makes them do right. I believe in the carrot more than the stick, and that morals are "created" more by carrots than by sticks.

Laws also do not work as a stick, although the naive view thinks they do: It's about taking away the carrot that makes them work.
If crime stops paying, people stop doing it. If the sentence is less bad than what the crime paid, people won't be deterred.

Thinking out loud: Hell, I'd go to jail for a year or 2 if it means I was paid 1 million euros. But I wouldn't kill a man for that same money.

[Andir]

I agree with you Urist, but... Morals are not instantiated by fear, but by a sense of what is "right". It's not the promise of hell which usually stops people from doing wrong, it's the sense of what is right, and the idea heaven, what makes them do right. I believe in the carrot more than the stick, and that morals are "created" more by carrots than by sticks.

Laws also do not work as a stick, although the naive view thinks they do: It's about taking away the carrot that makes them work.
If crime stops paying, people stop doing it. If the sentence is less bad than what the crime paid, people won't be deterred.

Thinking out loud: Hell, I'd go to jail for a year or 2 if it means I was paid 1 million euros. But I wouldn't kill a man for that same money.

Our carrots are different though.  Your carrot is a "long" term supposed creator's heaven and mine is "short" term humanism and living.  This is why religious people do things that are not always socially acceptable... because their carrots are made of feelings and they think that holds more weight.  (ie: flying a plane into a building... if I kill these people, i think it will do more for our cause and I should be rewarded in death!)

[TheDarkJay]

Thinking out loud: Hell, I'd go to jail for a year or 2 if it means I was paid 1 million euros. But I wouldn't kill a man for that same money.

You need at least 4 million nowadays to lead a millionaire's life style anyway -,,,-

[Siquo]

This is why religious people do things that are not always socially acceptable... because their carrots are made of feelings and they think that holds more weight.  (ie: flying a plane into a building... if I kill these people, i think it will do more for our cause and I should be rewarded in death!)

You are missing the point: Both "our" carrots are made of feelings. However much thought you put in them, in the end it's nothing but emotion, feeling and a belief in what is important in life, both for the rational humanist and for the overzealous (a)theist. What is "socially acceptable" differs greatly from one social group to another. None carry more weight, and still everyone believes his values hold more weight than anyone else's.

There is no difference, both are sets of values. Yes, one might be more constructive than the other, but no objective scientific theory ever said "constructive" is "better". It's all values and emotions again, and it all depends on your long-term goals. The survival of mankind? It's merely a value you find important, there are many who believe man and the world will end very soon, anyhow, and place little value on that one. The end of suffering? Suffering is different for each, so hard to minimise, and some think there are people who deserve suffering because they did bad stuff. There's no single value that's been uncontested in the entire history of man, no single one.

Of course societies have values that "look alike", because they work, and societies with "not-working" values tend to die out but that does not mean they are "Universally True" or have some higher meaning. Last I checked, the universe still did not behave like a democracy. The life of a man only has the value that you give it.

[Urist McOverlord]

There is no difference, both are sets of values. Yes, one might be more constructive than the other, but no objective scientific theory ever said "constructive" is "better". It's all values and emotions again, and it all depends on your long-term goals.

While I agree with most everything in your post, I feel that this line begins to tread on dangerous ground. While science doesn't say that "constructive" is "better," And while it is true that most societies with destructive values tend to get weeded out, on an individual level, these destructive values can still cause problems. If there's anything we can learn from the current War on Terror, it's that some few individuals with a destructive value system can cause all variety of problems. It is for these individuals and that we need the stick, to continue the metaphor.

And while I'll agree that law is rarely, if ever, an effective stick, it is a potential stick.

EDIT for quotefix.

[Siquo]

Those individuals will be stopped by sticks nor stones.
However, let's not go "there".
It's too bad that any conversation about understanding where their hatred comes from usually results in allegations of agreeing with them, even if you are merely understanding where they come from. It also adds an enormous load of emotions into an otherwise rational discussion.

I declare Terrorism to be the New Godwin.

Don't read this:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Ok I really can't help myself... when I read

If there's anything we can learn from the current War on Terror, it's that some few individuals with a destructive value system can cause all variety of problems.

to me, the "few individuals" in that sentence is about the Bushes and their voters and a few other groups. That's why we can't have a serious discussion about it.

On topic: declaring that "lots of people dead" is a "problem" is again an emotional value. One I can understand, I feel the same way as would most people, but that feeling is not universal. It's also not disruptive to the constructive society, as societies need a lot of damage to actually decline and fall.

The stick is usually more a "revenge"-thing from the victims than a preventive system, and to be preventive they need to be accurate and adequate. Especially the first one is lacking: People still often "get away with it"...

[Neruz]

Neruz, you lack empathy, and even the ability to acknowledge that other people might hold different opinions. And if they do, they are "obviously" stupid. How would I know you dislike pain? I know people who like certain types of pain. I cannot know you aren't one of them.

Because most people dislike pain. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that a person is not fond of pain.

Your dislike of pain is emotional, not rational. Pain can help clear your mind instead of being distractive. So is the "disadvantage" of death. "Advantage" is a value you connect to "being alive" and "not having pain", but it is YOU who does that, not some absolute objective universal value-making-logic.

No, i dislike pain because it hurts. If pain didn't hurt, then i would not dislike it.

Also, there are no goalposts, as there are no goals to be scored and no game to be won.

Har de har.

[Urist McOverlord]

Alright. I agree with your redefinition of Godwin. Sorry about the fail. Now. MOAR ON-TOPIC DISCUSSION!

*ahem*

Neruz: let's take physical pain out of the picture for a moment. look at all the people who act in a right way, motivated solely by their (emotional) values. In many cases, there is no practical advantage to acting in this way. But people do behave in a moral fashion regardless, so clearly emotion can motivate people, yes?

[FelixtheCats]

  Stop! No more religious debate until four people find me a image of a monkey

[RAM]

Religious morals fail because they are self defeating.

Honour your parents, but don't steal. What if your parents tell you to steal something? What if they tell you it isn't really stealing because they thinks its theirs, but you disagree? You can either disregard your parents or disregard theft. And there is not higher power to appeal to because apparently thins god is so far beyond you that you couldn't possibly comprehend their motives so your only recourse is to follow the rules that they left behind in some rather dubious methods that have been proven suspect by all the opposing religious texts that turned up AND ARE BELIEVED! Or hey, why not just pick and choose what seems to make sense because hey, gods must be reasonable, right, well, except for being beyond reasonable due to some state that makes absolutely no sense from any perspective, but that doesn't matter, because it makes sense from a perspective that only looks like it absolutely certainly couldn't possibly exist because a completely perfect being created a completely flawed one in a completely uncharacteristic, and largely impossible, act...
 What if your parents are not religious, what if they specifically tell you that they don't respect religion, don't want you to have anything to do with religion, and then die?

Multiple conflicting religions, even if no religions actually conflict with your personal religion, prove that faith alone is insufficient, because it obviously failed all the people who were wrong. I believe that faith alone is insufficient, so I don't need even need reason to dismiss anything that requires faith. The simple fact is that without an externally verified encounter with a god it is foolish to accept that one exists.

Not that it matters, so long as nobody is willing to define god it really doesn't matter what it is. You could call a pet fish a god and it would be perfectly valid. If you want to discuss the creator of our world, that is fine, it is completely unnecessary and actually creates some problems... You want something that judges an afterlife? If it refuses to make the qualifications clear, say, by having dead people turn up from time to time to remind us, then I don't respect its judgements or its person. It is(or isn't) just another pathetic piece of this world that needs to be overcome... You want something that controls this world? You are better off learning to control it yourself, a little control is better than an imagined little piece of absolute control... You want the patron of humanity to guide you? Find a target you can actually study and understand, instead of some amorphous blob of hypothetical authority that is blatantly abused by anyone with the inclination...

P.S.
 I hate ninja monkeys...

[chaoticag]

What on earth is that supposed to be about? Looks like spam.

[Neruz]

Neruz: let's take physical pain out of the picture for a moment. look at all the people who act in a right way, motivated solely by their (emotional) values. In many cases, there is no practical advantage to acting in this way. But people do behave in a moral fashion regardless, so clearly emotion can motivate people, yes?

Of course it can; it's just not required. Saying that one must live their life afraid of consequences in order to be a moral person, that without a fear of God a man is more likely to commit a henious crime, is utter nonsense. It is entirely possible to live one's life making decisions based on logic and rationality. Emotions such as fear can be part of the decision making process, but are not neccessary.


Certainly, one does not need to fear god to be a moral person. The fact that Atheist's exist and priests molest little boys proves that quite solidly.