Philosophy

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
But that still doen't give the motive for being 'good'- after all, it's just as easy to argue that if this life is all we've got, then the most important thing is to enjoy yourself as much as possible, and not worry about anybody else.

The "motive" is natural. Being a complete hedonist and not caring about anyone else at all is, I would dare say, more detrimental to passing on your lineage in the long run then being either altruistic when its best or selfish when its best. I dont see it as an either or issue really.

Really, the religious notion of being good in this life so that we gain the benefits in the "next life" can be seen in decent parallel with the naturalistic idea that if you are "good" such that it benefits your gene pool in this life then your "next life" (your decedents who hold some of your genes) will have a better chance of passing them on in turn. Curious how that works eh...

[Bombadillo]

Originally posted by Janny
*is horrified to discover established member Bomb is actually younger than self*
This is the problem I have in moral debates. People our age seem to be split into three groups. The religious, the philosophic, and the immoral. The religious stick to religious teaching, the philosophic attempt to make reasonable debate, and the immoral throw everything out on the grounds that there is no God, so morality just inpinges on their chosen lifstyle. It kills debate.

Brownjenkens, sorry I didn't realise... how long short-term was

In reference to your point reguarding genes and predispostion, and the ADD thread, do yo actually agree with the notion of diagnosing people based on our understanding of genetics/psychology? I feel that while people can have ADD, it becomes excusism. I think it essentially de-humanises, no longer can you attribute the actions to the human but only to the conditon. But, by induction, intelligent people have genes which make them so. So intelligence is a condition and no intelligent action or discovery can be attributed to the individual, only their condition.

Hehehe... yeah, well you always seemed to be my dad's age, too somehow.

I fully agree with you on our age group being divided into those three parts. And I feel like it's esspecially annoying for me, who enjoys a good argument, but whose family members take horrible offense if you disagree with them, and whose friends are too lazy to care. The only relief I can get from that peaceful dissapointment is yelling at Anglorfin.

Concerning the 'dehumanising' involved with ADD and such things, I'm on the fence anyway. I don't have a specific argument, because that always just seems too black and white. The conditions you refer to usually are accredited for some deeds of the person, but that condition has already become a big chunk of their personality. (...I'm not doing so well with words here.)

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
The "motive" is natural. Being a complete hedonist and not caring about anyone else at all is, I would dare say, more detrimental to passing on your lineage in the long run then being either altruistic when its best or selfish when its best. I dont see it as an either or issue really.

Really, the religious notion of being good in this life so that we gain the benefits in the "next life" can be seen in decent parallel with the naturalistic idea that if you are "good" such that it benefits your gene pool in this life then your "next life" (your decedents who hold some of your genes) will have a better chance of passing them on in turn. Curious how that works eh...

After some grammatical studies and a sentence diagram, and a quick trip to dictionary.com, I can still say that you lost me with the genes. I agree with your first paragraph, but I never understood why people so often associate genes with personality, when genetics and philosophy are so drasticly seperate from one another. I am sure that a good person's children don't grow up into good people because of genes, but because their parents raised them and shaped their minds toward goodness.

[Janny]

Originally posted by Bombadillo
I agree with your first paragraph, but I never understood why people so often associate genes with personality, when genetics and philosophy are so drasticly seperate from one another.

I think the thing is that philosoph studies the human being to an extent, but now genetics have been studied and quantified, it seperates what is human from what is preprogrammed. That's what I was getting at, how far is anything down to the individual and how far 'just my lousy genes'?

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
But that still doen't give the motive for being 'good'- after all, it's just as easy to argue that if this life is all we've got, then the most important thing is to enjoy yourself as much as possible, and not worry about anybody else.

a month or so back i had a detailed discussion about this in one of the religion threads... but my basic point was that if you start going around killing, stealing and raping, you will be punished by society, and your life restricted or maybe even ended... while one may want to do whatever they enjoy, it must be tempered to not infringe upon the enjoyment of other people... after all, we live in a society... this is where the 'long-term' comes in

the motive for being 'good' (or maybe better said, living a 'socially-acceptable lifestyle'), is the very preservation of your own desired lifestyle

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Have to disagree here- many people throughout history have been willing to die and kill for nationalist/ethnic/political goals that have nothing to do with an afterlife.

After all, modern suicide bombing started with the Tamil Tigers, whose goal was the creation of a Tamil homeland in northern Sri Lanka.

I think identification with a cause greater than the individual, religious or not, is the root motivation of martyrdom.

my point exactly!

just because religion is a thing that can cause a good person to do bad, does not mean it is the only thing

instead of thinking of grand schemes, i'd like to see people think more about themselves and this life... this sounds selfish, but i think that deep down, every human being is ultimately guided by self interest

the key is to show people that it is in their own self-interest to live a 'socially acceptable lifestyle'... which generally means being kind to those around you

if you think about it 'do onto others as you would have them do onto you' is a very selfish statement... yet a wise one

[Elvengirl]

Originally posted by brownjenkins

instead of thinking of grand schemes, i'd like to see people think more about themselves and this life... this sounds selfish, but i think that deep down, every human being is ultimately guided by self interest

the key is to show people that it is in their own self-interest to live a 'socially acceptable lifestyle'... which generally means being kind to those around you

if you think about it 'do onto others as you would have them do onto you' is a very selfish statement... yet a wise one

Well yes I can agree to that. What is the basic goal that every person has in common? Survival. We all want to survive. Living in a society and aiding others will help your own survial.

[Janny]

Does the Bible only appeal to humans on the level of self interest? 'Do unto others as you would they do unto you'. Does that mean that even God sees humans as selfish?

[Rían]

How is "Do unto others as you would they do unto you" selfish? It just means treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. It doesn't guarantee that YOU'LL be treated with the same consideration. I would say it's the antithesis of selfishness.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
How is "Do unto others as you would they do unto you" selfish? It just means treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. It doesn't guarantee that YOU'LL be treated with the same consideration. I would say it's the antithesis of selfishness.

i think you are looking at it from the negative connotations of the idea of selfishness, as opposed to 'believing or teaching that the chief motives of human action are derived from love of self'

it would be quite a different thing to say 'do unto others as god would expect you to do'... in the first case, the morals come from the individual, as opposed to the absolute in the latter

[Janny]

Brownjenkin's post sailed happily over my head, so if I'm restating something said just say....

'Do unto others as you would they do unto you' taken as a phrase assumes that the person being told it recognises their own interests, but is being told to respect that of others. So it is assuming the person being taught is basically only capable of selfishness. It's not a negative judgement of that person.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Janny
Brownjenkin's post sailed happily over my head, so if I'm restating something said just say....

'Do unto others as you would they do unto you' taken as a phrase assumes that the person being told it recognises their own interests, but is being told to respect that of others. So it is assuming the person being taught is basically only capable of selfishness. It's not a negative judgement of that person.

good point

and maybe better put too

[Bombadillo]

Originally posted by Janny
I think the thing is that philosoph studies the human being to an extent, but now genetics have been studied and quantified, it seperates what is human from what is preprogrammed. That's what I was getting at, how far is anything down to the individual and how far 'just my lousy genes'?

That clears up a whole lot then. I don't know an answer either way.

Originally posted by brownjenkins
my point exactly!

just because religion is a thing that can cause a good person to do bad, does not mean it is the only thing

instead of thinking of grand schemes, i'd like to see people think more about themselves and this life... this sounds selfish, but i think that deep down, every human being is ultimately guided by self interest

the key is to show people that it is in their own self-interest to live a 'socially acceptable lifestyle'... which generally means being kind to those around you

if you think about it 'do onto others as you would have them do onto you' is a very selfish statement... yet a wise one

"The mark of an immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." --J.D. Salinger

I thought that was relevant, and very wise indeed.

Originally posted by Janny
Does the Bible only appeal to humans on the level of self interest? 'Do unto others as you would they do unto you'. Does that mean that even God sees humans as selfish?

Well everybody sees humanity as selfish, and in this belief they only add more dimensions to their own selfishness.
I think it was written like that as a simple rule of thumb, something easy for humans to identify with, whether through selfishness or conscience or whatever. And doubless, it worked; they call it "the Golden Rule" and seems to be among the most universal passages of the Bible.

[Janny]

Originally posted by Bombadillo
"The mark of an immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." --J.D. Salinger

Well everybody sees humanity as selfish, and in this belief they only add more dimensions to their own selfishness.
I think it was written like that as a simple rule of thumb, something easy for humans to identify with, whether through selfishness or conscience or whatever. And doubless, it worked; they call it "the Golden Rule" and seems to be among the most universal passages of the Bible.

Mr Antinolini, I believe! I would have seen more meaning in what he was saying if he weren't referred to throughout as 'the pretentous, gay prick' by my teacher.

Good point!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Really, the religious notion of being good in this life so that we gain the benefits in the "next life" can be seen in decent parallel with the naturalistic idea that if you are "good" such that it benefits your gene pool in this life then your "next life" (your decedents who hold some of your genes) will have a better chance of passing them on in turn. Curious how that works eh...

That notion is NOT in Christianity but may be in some other religious worldviews.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ragnarok
Heres a quote that I like very much that is straight to the point...

"Art teaches nothing, except the significance of life."
~ Michael Korda

I like that!

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
But that still doen't give the motive for being 'good'- after all, it's just as easy to argue that if this life is all we've got, then the most important thing is to enjoy yourself as much as possible, and not worry about anybody else.

You're absolutely right, IMO. And I think that is one of the strongest proofs for the existence of God - the fact that we ALL have a basic recognition that certain behaviors can be classed as right or wrong, and that those behaviors are uncannily similar ...

[Rían]

Originally posted by Millane
... also delves into how atheists are still pious which also has some discussion value

Of course they're pious - they're created by God, just like the rest of us, with a moral sense.

Another indicator that God exists - atheists SHOULD NOT be pious if God DOESN'T exist -- yet they are .... think about it.

(IOW, if God exists, the fact that an atheist denies this doesn't make God go "poof" and disappear. Kinda like the Nietzsche bumper sticker.)

[Millane]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Of course they're pious - they're created by God, just like the rest of us, with a moral sense.

Another indicator that God exists - atheists SHOULD NOT be pious if God DOESN'T exist -- yet they are .... think about it.

(IOW, if God exists, the fact that an atheist denies this doesn't make God go "poof" and disappear. Kinda like the Nietzsche bumper sticker.)

Nietzsche is referring to the piousness of Atheists, not concerned with God, but rather with Truth, he basically says everything needs to be tested and proved before it is regarded as being fact and even then it is held in a state that could easily be misproven, the only thing that we dont examine is the fallibility of Truth. It is interesting but i would much prefer to hear you speak of how Atheists are still pious in Gods sense

[Rían]

Well, I keep trying to start a thread called "why you believe what you believe" where I wanted to explain this in detail, but I keep getting sidetracked - and I have to get off the Moot in 5 mintues and can't get back on till prob. Tuesday , but I'll give it a quick whirl ...


From what I observe and read, people all over the world are "pious", or "moral", in the most basic sense of people everywhere acknowledge that there is a "right" and a "wrong". Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, agnostics, whatever - people are MORAL beings. They look at a behavior and make a judgement about whether it is right or wrong (or sometimes just neutral, such as reading a book).

And what's really quite amazing is the astounding similarity of what is considered right and wrong. Take killing people, for example. Now people might disagree as to what type of killing is right and what type of killing is wrong (example - some people think capital punishment is right, some think it is wrong. Some people think killing a person for self-defense is right, some think it is wrong. Some people think that killing soldiers that are invading your country is right, some think it is wrong) - but ALL people, from what we read and observe, think that some level of killing is wrong - usually killing solely for selfish personal gain.

Same thing with lying. Some people think that it's ok to lie to save someone else, some think it's not OK. But all people, from what we read and observe, think that lying solely for selfish personal gain at the expense of a person that you love is wrong.

I could go on and on, but as I said, I have to get off soon, so I'll just give those 2 examples.

Now IIRC, you're an atheist. I'm a Christian. I won't get into how we have each arrived at our beliefs right now, but let's take turns jumping inside of each other's beliefs and see how they play out.

Ladies first so come on into Christianity with me. Christianity says that God is a moral being, and that He created people in His image, which among other things means they are moral beings. In addition, the Bible states that God has placed His basic moral values into the heart of EVERY person that has ever lived, and their conscience accused them when they go against the moral laws in their hearts, and affirms them when they go with the moral laws in their hearts. Now take a look around - is this what you see? It's sure what I see. People are moral beings, they have consciences which often are really irritating but are really the instrument of a loving God to point out people's errors and their need of Him, and morals all over the world are very similar. Thus, it is perfectly compatible with Christianity being true that atheists, even tho they don't believe in God, are MORAL.

Now I'll step outside of Christianity into atheism with you. Atheism claims, basically, that there is no God or higher being with any type of superior claim to authority or power. Now what can one deduce from this? Personally, I think it is logical to deduce that the concepts of "right" and "wrong" should not even exist. If there is no higher authority, then everyone has the same authority, and my opinion of what is right or wrong is just as good as yours - we're at the same authority level. In fact, there shouldn't even be a moral sense AT ALL in people, let alone a common one. If you tell me "don't murder my friend, it's wrong!" I could easily answer "I don't care what you think is wrong, I disagree, and I want to murder your friend!" And what's more, neither one of us should feel bad about it - after all, why should we? My opinion is just as important (or unimportant) as yours. But we do not see this happening! In fact, quite the opposite. Both you and I think murdering your friend is WRONG. And this, to me, is a STRONG indicator that atheism is NOT correct; that there IS, in fact, a moral God, as Christianity states.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense - I'm in a hurry - but it's a start. What do you think? (and actually, you hinted at this very thing in your first post, IIRC - the whole idea of right and wrong suggesting the existence of God, or something along those lines - no time to check!)

[Insidious Rex]

one could easily counter this "christian logic" of the proof of morality and therefore god with the quite obvious fact that you are ignoring the countless examples of humans being horrible and cruel to each other. killing without remorse. brutilizing and raping and destroying and torturing. so the question really shouldnt be why we are often nice to each other and how that proves god. The question really should be why are we also mean to each other so often if god carefully injects these morals into each of us that are supposed to urge us toward the straight and narrow.

now of course your retort to this will be oh well thats because god in all his infinite wisdom decided to give us FREE WILL! which proves the existance of god even more! because, what do you know, we have free will! but if you use this as a response then your original proof that god gave us morals is deflated it seems to me because why give us strong morals and yet turn around and give us free will to do bad things? unless god is a giant lab scientist on some holy university grant and we are his test subjects. sure its possible. but i dont see how you can say this is the clearest proof of god in action. it seems a lot more logical that biologically humans gain more from being sociable with each other but can certainly sometimes benefit from being horrible to each other. and that plays out in the observed data perfectly.