Atheism and Self-Esteem

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
When I say society has no value, I mean it has no value according to what is apparently your system.

Where did I ever say society has no value. Please stop making presumptions about what "my system" is. Personally I think living in society has tremendous value. I appreciate it every time I take advantage of something, material or abstract, that someone else has produced.

What I find ironic is that, if you truly believe that morality does not exist outside human thought, then it is inconsistent to expect anyone to believe society has value, since you know that morality is only a personal illusion.

What does the value of society have anything to do with morality? Morality is an illusion only if all the other human beings in the world are also illusions.

In that sense, you're right. If I was the only person in the Universe, there would be no concept of "right" or "wrong".

What right do you have to expect others to share your illusions?

None. Fortunately, moral values that work well for everyone as a whole usually work well for the individual, too. Think about it. A society that holds murder to be "wrong" benefits every individual member of that society.

You may like it when they share your illusions, but indignance is inconsistent since you know it's all illusory anyway. But heck, since your morality only exists in your head, I guess there's nothing wrong with being inconsistent unless yourpersonal illusion of morality says inconsistency is wrong.

Indignance? What are you talking about?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Where did I ever say society has no value.

You didn't say it. It's the logical consequence of the premise that morals exist only in human thoughts.

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Please stop making presumptions about what "my system" is. Personally I think living in society has tremendous value. I appreciate it every time I take advantage of something, material or abstract, that someone else has produced.

What does the value of society have anything to do with morality?

1. I am not making presumptions. That's why I said apparently your system. Someone else set the premise that morality does not exist outside human thought and you seemed to agree. If you don't agree, say so.

2. I know you say you think society has positive value and should be supported (that's where the morality comes in). But you should also know that, according to the premise that morality exists only in human thought, it is no better or worse for anyone else to think society has negative value and should be destroyed.

Indeed, to maintain that morality exists only in human thought and simultaneously say society has its own value would seem to be a good definition of insanity to me, because you are saying that you've bought into your own personal illusion while simultaneously recognizing that it is an illusion.

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
In that sense, you're right. If I was the only person in the Universe, there would be no concept of "right" or "wrong".

But according to the premise, you might just as well be the only person in the universe, since your morality is based entirely on your own personal thoughts, which are by nature motivated by self-interest.

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Fortunately, moral values that work well for everyone as a whole usually work well for the individual, too. Think about it. A society that holds murder to be "wrong" benefits every individual member of that society.

Again, you are using terms like "benefits" and "fortunately" and "work well" as if they have some meaning in this kind of discussion with anyone who might disagree. But your premise prohibits that.

Put it this way. You are attempting to justify why it is "good" to hold murder wrong. But given the premise that morality doesn't exist outside human thought, all you're saying is that these things are good and fortunate and work well according to your own private illusion of what is good or bad. There's nothing objectively "wrong" with someone's contrary opinion that murder is what benefits society. You can't dispute that without appealing to an objective moral standard, which you say does not exist.

(Edited for formatting quotes)

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ifriit
You keep claiming that subjectivists must believe in an objective value, and I'm telling you that it doesn't even make sense.

I'm saying nothing of the kind, which is probably why your counterarguments make no sense.

 

[Humanista]

Npetreley said:
1. I am not making presumptions. That's why I said apparently your system. Someone else set the premise that morality does not exist outside human thought and you seemed to agree. If you don't agree, say so.

2. I know you say you think society has positive value and should be supported (that's where the morality comes in). But you should also know that, according to the premise that morality exists only in human thought, it is no better or worse for anyone else to think society has negative value and should be destroyed.

Indeed, to maintain that morality exists only in human thought and simultaneously say society has its own value would seem to be a good definition of insanity to me, because you are saying that you've bought into your own personal illusion while simultaneously recognizing that it is an illusion.

___________________________________________________________

I was the one that says morality is a CONCEPT rather than a PHYSICAL THING and you seem to have misunderstood.
Do you believe love, honor, compassion, loyalty, or happiness exist?
Do you believe these things exist on the moon, where there are no humans to define and experience them inside their heads, which is where we all experience emotions and concepts? Do they exist inside a termite colony, whose imhabitants are incapable of having thoughts?
If love, honor etc. do not exist except where there are humans to conceptualize/feel them, then you must see that morality likewise is a CONCEPT and not a thing you can place in a space ship and send to an uninhabited planet.

Now, having established that some things are CONCEPTUAL and not PHYSICAL does NOT mean that therefore love, honesty, compassion, loylaty and happiness do not EXIST as feelings we experience or as descriptions of the way we interact with others.

Being a CONCEPT does NOT invalidate love and happiness and morals and make them ILLUSIONS.

Understanding the DIFFERENCE between an IDEA, which by definition, is a product of the human MIND, and how that idea is translated into actions, laws, behaviours, and various ways that humans interact socially requires that you stop trying to make the definitions so simplistic.

A concept can't exist without someone to think it.Emotions do not exist without someone to feel them. If every person on earth died tomorrow, our thoughts, ideas, and feelings would not exist. If you cannot grasp that, you cannot understand my point.

If you CANNOT tell the difference between an IDEA and its implications and a physical OBJECT, then you simply can't understand my point and I will stop taking up space trying to explain it AGAIN.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Humanista
I was the one that says morality is a CONCEPT rather than a PHYSICAL THING and you seem to have misunderstood.

It may have been what you meant, but this is exactly what you said:

1. I am an atheist and a naturalist. I think the natural world is all there is.
I also accept evolution as a valid explanation for the empirical evidence found in the world.

2. There are no morals or purpose that exist outside human thought. There is no supernatural being dreaming these things up or assigning meaning to our lives.

3. (stay with me now) People can and do find purpose and meaning in their lives, and they also develop a moral code.

Originally posted by Humanista
Do you believe love, honor, compassion, loyalty, or happiness exist? etc. etc.

I don't see what my beliefs have to do with this discussion. Given your premise it doesn't matter a whit what I believe, since your system doesn't consider that any more real than what you concoct in terms of illusory morality.

Originally posted by Humanista
Now, having established that some things are CONCEPTUAL and not PHYSICAL does NOT mean that therefore love, honesty, compassion, loylaty and happiness do not EXIST as feelings we experience or as descriptions of the way we interact with others.

To say they exist as feelings adds no new information. It is purely redundant, since the feelings come from your thoughts, and you already said that no morality exists outside human thought.

Originally posted by Humanista
Being a CONCEPT does NOT invalidate love and happiness and morals and make them ILLUSIONS.

It doesn't invalidate them in the sense that they don't feel the same. It does make them illusions, however, since they only exist in your head and not in reality. According to your premise, that is.

Originally posted by Humanista
Understanding the DIFFERENCE between an IDEA, which by definition, is a product of the human MIND, and how that idea is translated into actions, laws, behaviours, and various ways that humans interact socially requires that you stop trying to make the definitions so simplistic.

It's not simplistic. But in the grand scheme of things, one IDEA is no better or worse than another, since IDEAS are subject only to the personal morality of the thinkers. Therefore how one acts them out in laws and behaviors is entirely arbitrary. You can agree with 100 people to arrest a murderer, but you are being inconsistent with your philosophy if you call that murderer "bad" in any way other than "I just happen to have been born with the illusion that murder is bad," because to the murderer, he may think he is "good". And since morality doesn't exist outside human thought, there's no yardstick with which to measure how correct your morality is vs his and see which is closer to the truth. There is no truth about morality if it doesn't exist on its own...and that's what you're saying. Morality is only what a given individual thinks at the moment, subject at any time to change.

Originally posted by Humanista
A concept can't exist without someone to think it.Emotions do not exist without someone to feel them. If every person on earth died tomorrow, our thoughts, ideas, and feelings would not exist. If you cannot grasp that, you cannot understand my point.

I understand that fully, and have pointed out exactly the same thing. That's what makes your concept of morals all the more meaningless when it comes to saying things like "it benefits society." Wipe out society, and there are no people left to imagine morality, therefore there's nobody and nothing left to say that what you did (wipe out society) is wrong. Therefore there's nothing wrong with wiping out society according to your view. So it is inconsistent for anyone who holds your view to say "I value society and contribute to it" as if that's a "good" thing outside of his own personal illusion of what is good.

In short, your values have no value. Your purpose in life is illusory. Your morals have no moral worth. Your enire system of morality is based in fantasy, since it only lives in your head and has no authority outside your head.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
You didn't say it. It's the logical consequence of the premise that morals exist only in human thoughts.

Really? How does it follow that because morality is a human invention that society has no value?

I know you say you think society has positive value and should be supported (that's where the morality comes in). But you should also know that, according to the premise that morality exists only in human thought, it is no better or worse for anyone else to think society has negative value and should be destroyed.

True, but only in the absolute sense. Any society that values itself will obviously want to develop a moral code that protects it from those who want to destroy it.

Indeed, to maintain that morality exists only in human thought and simultaneously say society has its own value would seem to be a good definition of insanity to me,

Continually equating "morality" with "value" is the definition of insanity to me. A potato clearly has value (you can eat it). It is silly to ask whether a potato is right or wrong.

But according to the premise, you might just as well be the only person in the universe, since your morality is based entirely on your own personal thoughts, which are by nature motivated by self-interest.

And it is in my self-interest to get along with the other people in the world. That's the whole point. Those who want to be hermits and not interact with other people are free to behave any way they like.

Again, you are using terms like "benefits" and "fortunately" and "work well" as if they have some meaning in this kind of discussion with anyone who might disagree. But your premise prohibits that.

The premise does not prohibit these terms from having meaning to each individual.

Put it this way. You are attempting to justify why it is "good" to hold murder wrong. But given the premise that morality doesn't exist outside human thought, all you're saying is that these things are good and fortunate and work well according to your own private illusion of what is good or bad. There's nothing objectively "wrong" with someone's contrary opinion that murder is what benefits society. You can't dispute that without appealing to an objective moral standard, which you say does not exist.

No, I'm saying that society itself ultimately determines what is "good" or "bad" based on mutual agreement of its members, who are in turn motivated by their own self interests (private illusions as you say). While there may not be anything objectively wrong with murder, don't be surprised if the society you live in perceives you as a threat and acts accordingly. There is no need to appeal to any standards other than those of the society itself.

 

[lithium.]

In short, your values have no value. Your purpose in life is illusory. Your morals have no moral worth. Your enire system of morality is based in fantasy, since it only lives in your head and has no authority outside your head.

Hey Humanista could say the same thing about you.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
In short, your values have no value. Your purpose in life is illusory. Your morals have no moral worth. Your enire system of morality is based in fantasy, since it only lives in your head and has no authority outside your head.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[Humanista]

Npetreley,

You seem to be having trouble distinguishing  the concept of absolute morality and how moral systems come about in human society. You also are willfully ignoring the facts of how each individual arrives at his moral compass.

I didn't think I needed to explain that I meant morality as a concept is the product of the human brain and that is what I meant when I said it exists only in the human brain. I keep going over and over this, but you stubbornly cling to a simplistic understanding of "concepts" and "thoughts".

Democracy is also a concept that exists only in the human imagination. Now if you start insisting that this viewpoint---it is actually a fact----means that democracy is illusionary and is "only in our heads" according to my atheism, then I give up.

People do not live in a moral vacuum until they are old enough to understand and form a philosophy of creation/origins/gods. One's value system is built from a very early age and very few people are left completely to their own devices to create a value system all on their own with no outside imput. Why do you continue to insist that my worldview says everyone creates their own selfish system that is an illusion just because morals are a concept describing behaviour?

I think I have more than adequately explained my position and I am tired of knocking down your strawman. Reread my posts, if you don't get it, then
let's just throw up our hands and say you don't get it and go on to something else.

 

[ifriit]

npetreley: I'm saying nothing of the kind, which is probably why your counterarguments make no sense.

I'm sorry you did not understand.  I doubt I have the time or the patience to explain it to you; nonetheless, I would suggest you examine your statements about what subjectivists "must" believe.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Really? How does it follow that because morality is a human invention that society has no value?

I'm truly surprised you can't see that obvious conclusion. First, when I say "value" I'm saying whether or not it is good or bad to perpetuate society or destroy it. If morailty does not exist outside of human thought, then society is neither good nor bad until someone thinks it is one or the other. And in that case, society is only good to the person who assigns it the value "good," and it is bad to the person who assigns it the value "bad." The best you can say is that the majority of people think society is good, but even then you cannot say that this is the correct perception of society. In order to do that, society would have to be "good" in some objective way so that your perception of it as "good" would somehow be accurate. But since you believe morality does not exist outside human perception, that is impossible.

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
True, but only in the absolute sense. Any society that values itself will obviously want to develop a moral code that protects it from those who want to destroy it.

So what's your point? Any society that does not value itself may obviously degenerate into anarchy, boot out the people who think it is worthwhile, and destroy itself. According to your philosophy, it doesn't matter which because neither the constructive nor destructive society can be measured against an objective moral standard.

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Continually equating "morality" with "value" is the definition of insanity to me. A potato clearly has value (you can eat it). It is silly to ask whether a potato is right or wrong.

Yes, according to your apparent premise, it does have personal value to you. But you seem to think there's something "good" about the fact that you can eat it. Why? If morality does not exist outside human thought, then there's nothing wrong someone killing your potato crop and leaving you without food as long as that person's morality says it's fine to do that.

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
And it is in my self-interest to get along with the other people in the world. That's the whole point. Those who want to be hermits and not interact with other people are free to behave any way they like.

And are you saying that those who believe it is in their self-interest to murder you and all the people who agree with you are free to behave any way they like? Is there any reason why that would be "wrong" aside from the fact that it does not serve YOUR self-interest? If not, then it's just one person's illusion of morality vs. another's, and it's a draw. Actually, as I've said before, the murderer has the edge in this, since once you're dead, your morality is gone and his remains.

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
No, I'm saying that society itself ultimately determines what is "good" or "bad" based on mutual agreement of its members, who are in turn motivated by their own self interests (private illusions as you say). While there may not be anything objectively wrong with murder, don't be surprised if the society you live in perceives you as a threat and acts accordingly. There is no need to appeal to any standards other than those of the society itself.

I see your point. I'm glad you admit that according to your philosophy, there's nothing objectively wrong with murder. So I guess that answers my question above.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Pot. Kettle. Black.

Of course you feel that way. How could you not feel that way if you believe that morality does not exist outside human thought? So you're just being redundant.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
I'm truly surprised you can't see that obvious conclusion. First, when I say "value" I'm saying whether or not it is good or bad to perpetuate society or destroy it. If morailty does not exist outside of human thought, then society is neither good nor bad until someone thinks it is one or the other. And in that case, society is only good to the person who assigns it the value "good," and it is bad to the person who assigns it the value "bad." The best you can say is that the majority of people think society is good, but even then you cannot say that this is the correct perception of society.

Who cares if it is "correct" or not. All that matters is that it has value to the people who live in it.

In order to do that, society would have to be "good" in some objective way so that your perception of it as "good" would somehow be accurate. But since you believe morality does not exist outside human perception, that is impossible.

That's right. But I don't care about how society measures up to some objective standard. All we care about is how it measures up to human standards.

Any society that does not value itself may obviously degenerate into anarchy, boot out the people who think it is worthwhile, and destroy itself. According to your philosophy, it doesn't matter which because neither the constructive nor destructive society can be measured against an objective moral standard.

So what? Since when did we need measure the merits of one society vs. another? I thought the topic was individual morality.

But you seem to think there's something "good" about the fact that you can eat it. Why?

Because I like potato chips.

If morality does not exist outside human thought, then there's nothing wrong someone killing your potato crop and leaving you without food as long as that person's morality says it's fine to do that.

From a purely objective standpoint, yes. But who cares? Why can't a morality devised and accepted by a human society be used to judge the behavior of individuals in that society? WHERE IS THE RULE THAT SAYS I MUST HAVE AN ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVE STANDARD?

And are you saying that those who believe it is in their self-interest to murder you and all the people who agree with you are free to behave any way they like? Is there any reason why that would be "wrong" aside from the fact that it does not serve YOUR self-interest?

You mean other than the point I have been repeatedly trying to hammer through your skull: moral standards are set by human societies, not individuals.

If not, then it's just one person's illusion of morality vs. another's, and it's a draw. Actually, as I've said before, the murderer has the edge in this, since once you're dead, your morality is gone and his remains.

Completely missing the point again I see.

I see your point.

Doesn't seem like it.

I'm glad you admit that according to your philosophy, there's nothing objectively wrong with murder. So I guess that answers my question above.

Yep, there may be no objective standard by which murder is wrong. Thankfully we have countless human standards by which to make that judgement instead.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Who cares if it is "correct" or not. All that matters is that it has value to the people who live in it.

SOME of the people who live in it. That was never in dispute. It simply has no value of its own.

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
That's right. But I don't care about how society measures up to some objective standard. All we care about is how it measures up to human standards.

Well, given the premise, you have no right to speak for any human except yourself. So all your philosophy gives you a right to is to have an opinion on how it measures up to your personal illusory standards.

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
So what? Since when did we need measure the merits of one society vs. another? I thought the topic was individual morality.

Which is why it is absurd to say that you care about how it measures up to human standards, as if you can speak for anyone but yourself.

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
From a purely objective standpoint, yes. But who cares? Why can't a morality devised and accepted by a human society be used to judge the behavior of individuals in that society? WHERE IS THE RULE THAT SAYS I MUST HAVE AN ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVE STANDARD?

There is no such rule according to your system. I don't know why that's an issue with you. All I'm saying is that you have no moral authority outside your own head, since you have no objective standard to which you can appeal. So when you say that this or the other thing is "beneficial" or "works well" then all you're saying is that your personal illusion of morality favors these things. Which isn't saying much, except maybe to yourself.

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
You mean other than the point I have been repeatedly trying to hammer through your skull: moral standards are set by human societies, not individuals.

You cannot have real moral standards if morality does not exist outside human thought. You can only have a number of people who agree about some illusory principles of morality and attempt to force others to obey them.

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Yep, there may be no objective standard by which murder is wrong. Thankfully we have countless human standards by which to make that judgement instead.

Again, you say "thankfully" as if that's a good thing. But you have no moral authority to make such a statement, because the next person who reads it may think murder is a good thing. And by your own philosophy, there's nothing wrong with that.

So if you truly want to be consistent with your philosophy, what you should have said is, "We have many humans who arbitrarily consider murder to be wrong, and they have gained enough societal power to enforce that arbitrary standard. This is neither good nor bad, just how things worked out."

 

[ifriit]

npetreley: There is no such rule according to your system. I don't know why that's an issue with you. All I'm saying is that you have no moral authority outside your own head, since you have no objective standard to which you can appeal. So when you say that this or the other thing is "beneficial" or "works well" then all you're saying is that your personal illusion of morality favors these things. Which isn't saying much, except maybe to yourself.

This says more about you than the people you are attempting to argue with; all it says is that you, personally, do not care about the values and morality of others. I am thankful you have your religion to tell you how to live, else you would obviously be a sociopath.

npetreley: You cannot have real moral standards if morality does not exist outside human thought.

Self-contradictory. If subjectivism is assumed, then "real moral standards" are subjective. Objective moral standards, by definition, are not real.

npetreley: Again, you say "thankfully" as if that's a good thing. But you have no moral authority to make such a statement, because the next person who reads it may think murder is a good thing.

What is this moral authority required to make statements about morality? You're just making things up!

npetreley: And by your own philosophy, there's nothing wrong with that.

Please prove this. I have yet to see anyone here claim that it is good for people to think murder is good.

npetreley: So if you truly want to be consistent with your philosophy, what you should have said is, "We have many humans who arbitrarily consider murder to be wrong, and they have gained enough societal power to enforce that arbitrary standard. This is neither good nor bad, just how things worked out."

This makes no sense. Why must he discard his morality?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
So if you truly want to be consistent with your philosophy, what you should have said is, "We have many humans who arbitrarily consider murder to be wrong, and they have gained enough societal power to enforce that arbitrary standard. This is neither good nor bad, just how things worked out."

I prefer this:

"We have many humans who for human reasons consider murder to be wrong, so much so that society has established human institutions to enforce this judgement. Thus by human standards murder is considered morally wrong."

Is that consistent enough for you?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
I prefer this:

"We have many humans who for human reasons consider murder to be wrong, so much so that society has established human institutions to enforce this judgement. Thus by human standards murder is considered morally wrong."

Is that consistent enough for you?

Not quite. "For human reasons" presupposes too much, as does "by human standards." These are just buying into your own illusion. So it would be more consistent to say, "We have many humans whose illusion of morality is such that murder is wrong. So much so that they enforce this judgement. Thus, the majority of humans share the illusion that murder is wrong."

 

[lithium.]

illusion wt* are you talking about i know that killing is wrong, i know it in my heart. There isn't any illusion to it.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
Not quite. "For human reasons" presupposes too much, as does "by human standards." These are just buying into your own illusion. So it would be more consistent to say, "We have many humans whose illusion of morality is such that murder is wrong. So much so that they enforce this judgement. Thus, the majority of humans share the illusion that murder is wrong."

If that's what it takes for you to maintain your illusion of righteousness, then so be it.

 

[OneLargeToe]

Npetreley once again gets owned by LFoD!

Sorry, just a bit of juvenile commentary there.