Thursday, July 21, 2005

I Got This in My Inbox Just Now...

While in the chat room you said
"I think that if there were a God that was everywhere, was al-powerful, and knew everything in the universe, it would be absurd and hilarious that She would give a Sh*t about our sex-lives. "
But let me ask you somthing you believe that there is no God but do you believe murder is wrong?

Yes, murder is wrong.

Do you believe lieing is not something you should do often.


It depends. Lies are necessary in certain circumstances. Whether it should be done "often" or not depends upon the reasons we lie.

If you do then you have morals. If you have morals where did they come from?


My "morals" come from reality. Values are subjective. Morality is not, as it comes from the facts of reality. Morals are the set of actions we do when we make choices in our lives based upon our values. We should always act in our own best self-interest, so that we can survive and have good lives.

Do you really think that a person who truly does not believe in god would go out and murder people? That would mean that you do not have real moral values. If you really base your morals upon a belief in a god (which I don't believe you do) then you have nothing. Your morals, if they are biblically based, are subjective and wishy-washy, and have no solid base.

Who is the one that is superior enough to set these standards that most of the world believes?


Nobody should. It's not about an authority setting standards. It's based upon civilization. It's silly for someone to call themselves a god and try to make rules for everyone to follow, for the only reason that he threatens them with eternal punishment for non-eternal rule-breaking. That is quite immoral, don't you think?

If there is someone this superior enough to set them, which if you said yes to either of the two previous questions, then they would be known as a God therefore there is a God. The God.


Nobody can set the kind of standards to keep you alive. The standards exist as the rules of reality. The laws of nature are fine as they are. We don't have to anthropormorphize them into something that looks like us. That would be just silly.


Sincerely,
Alleee
http://www.hellboundalleee.com

24 comments:

Mike said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hellbound Alleee said...

Mike has asked me why I don't criticize other religions, like Scientology, that are, apparently, "politically correct." I will allow the dumbass to spend some time looking at my other websites before he may post again. I am being very kind, as his post makes him look even more idiotic than it did before.

Bliggety Blast Circle said...

One of the main problems facing society is that we have "natural" instincts that are ingrained at birth for self-preservation. You know, run to higher ground from danger, defend ourself when cornered, if you're not sure you can eat it, give it a taste. All these things are skewed when entering into a society as complex and confusing as it is now. All those instincts get distorted. You still see men puff up and get rowdy to attract females, you see people lash out when cornered in a debate. Those instincts have evolved, but are imperfect for their current surroundings. Sorry, this is hard to articulate. Basically, the way the world is now, we have fallen behind in having natural tools to react our surroundings. Man's society has evolved faster than we have physiologically. Morals were not an issue 10000 years ago, they are now. No one can prescribe them. Murder didn't matter 10000 years ago, it just made you top dog.

Francois Tremblay said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hellbound Alleee said...

said...

No, Europe Bound. Morals did exist when we were primitive. But I'm not sure what you mean: prosciptive or desciptive? Morals as in what is moral, or morals as in an emergent property of deciding what's the best course of action?

Yes, murder mattered. Murder matters in any group. I'm really not sure how you came up with that conclusion. Why would any civilization, primitive as it was, be simply "dog eat dog?" Even dogs have to live together in packs. They chose family groups. As Franc describes it, "If you say 100,000 years ago, I wouldn't have a problem with it [the idea that we didn't have morals].

I've been trying to explain it more simply. But so far what I'm trying to say is that morality is an emergent property of the brain of a being that has cognition of identity. You can say that it is a moral act to eat, and stay warm and healthy.

I think it is a mistake to talk about morality simply as "what is right and what is wrong." Morality should not be anthropormorphized. Morality is like a property of deciding between actions. It's not like "that man is moral." It's mlore like "that man has a moral decision to make." And if he wanted to survive and promote his genes, he had to make moral decisions every day, all the time.

Remember, people 10,000 years ago had already started building houses for a thousand years, and had shamans, etc. Unless you meant to add a zero. Brains took some time to evolve--so I think you were on the right track.

Bliggety Blast Circle said...

I just kind of threw a number out(real scientific, I know). But the main point is that I think we are looking at the definition of the actual word differently, is all. In man's pre-language days, I am sure that "right and wrong" drew little attention.

breakerslion said...

Some interesting observations! I think that the religion racket did help advance civilization at first, but it has outlasted its usefulness to a point that would make it absurd if it wasn't so tragic. Some things about humankind have been deliberately obscured by the religious formula. We are animals. We are pack animals. We are omnivores and scavengers. As such, we cooperate. Cooperation creates rules of behavior. Simple rules of behavior involve a pecking order. Infractions of those rules creates retribution that goes unchallenged by the rest of the pack. From this simplicity, more elaborate rules develop, and with rules, social enforcement also develops. Morality is an internalization and acceptance/rejection of the present social order. Rejection can take the form of transcendence (creating a higher moral standard for one's self) or descent (adopting a ... less social (?) moral standard). In any case, accepting a rule of conduct because you believe that, if you don't, an angry god will punish you with bad karma and halitosis, is not morals, it is fear.

Hellbound Alleee said...

Exactly. It cannot be morality if it comes from the end of a gun.

I just watched a great movie today--"Spring Forward," starring Ned Neatty. It was basically two guys, one in his 60's, one in his early thirties--talking during work. The older guy was talking about church and spirituality seminars, etc. He said that people inherently want to do good anyway. They go to church or these retreats, use it as an excuse to do good, then the institutions say, "you did a good deed, now give us money." I thought that was pretty wise. You would have done the good deeds anyway, but the religious organizations make themselves middlemen.

I'm not saying humans are inherently "good." I think humans cannot be either "good," or "evil." I think dualism is "evil." Humans have an inherent desire that's born to them, to "do good." To live a good life, to succeed, to be happy. Some of us are fucktards, and have no idea how to do it. SOme of us are born with messed-up heads that don't give us the ability to--empathize, see beyond the present, see beyond short-term needs, etc. MOst of us are totally lazy. But nobody "is" good, or :is" evil. That's religion, not good sense.

Rev. Barking Nonsequitor said...

Religion has outlived it's usefulness for those who have no need for it. Fortunately, it is much easier now to live without it's influence, however, I don't think it will disappear. There is evidence to suggest that a certain portion of the population is genetically prone to superstitious thinking. I have met many people that seem to possess very few analytical faculties. They need not be stupid but are more comfortable living in a fantasy world - not unlike the way many people respond to storytelling for instance. Part of this is indoctrination, but I'm sure that much of it is endemic and religion has evolved (sic)as an art for the purpose of harvesting thier will.

Hellbound Alleee said...

Saying religion evolved is totally and completely accurate. Religion, I think, evolved from the same source originally. Just like us.

breakerslion said...

Indeed religion evolved. I have been studying Zoroastrianism, the mother of many modern religions. Lots of the modern formulae can be traced back, but it is also apparent why this religion was supplanted by more "user friendly" versions.

"There is evidence to suggest that a certain portion of the population is genetically prone to superstitious thinking."

I think that this is due to unnatural selection. Religious institutions used to be much more aggressive in destroying those that they could not control.

bleedingisaac said...

Alleee,

I think you would have a hard time defending your idea that "Values are subjective. Morality is not, as it comes from the facts of reality." Moral law is so diverse that it is extremely difficult to find any universal or objective 'facts of reality' sufficient to justify many of your moral beliefs (e.g. what fact of reality would you appeal to to tell a cannibalistic tribe that cannibalism is immoral?).

I think you are much safer arguing for a type of moral relativism. I laid out one version here that I think adequately answers this person's questions and accounts for moral diversity.

Francois Tremblay said...

"Moral law is so diverse"

No... people's opinions are diverse, just like people's position on the development of life. But Neo-Darwinism is a fact regardless of that diversity. In fact, given memetic evolution, we should EXPECT "moral laws" to be "diverse". That doesn't mean that moral objectivity is invalid. Read up on the difference between "description" and "prescription".

bleedingisaac said...

No. . . moral law is diverse.

There is no fact upon which you can base the moral judgment, it is morally wrong for Hitler to exterminate Jews. You could say, "It is wrong to kill the innocent," but Hitler could answer back, "Nationalism is a higher priority than the death of a few million people. It is better to kill a few million Jews and have a common enemy to unite my people by than to save them."

The difference is one of values, not of fact. Hitler believes nationalism is of greater value than the lives of Jews. Most other people believe an innocent life is more valuable than nationalism.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find a way to connect any moral requirement to a fact in such a way as to be convincing.

Hellbound Alleee said...

I have absolutely no problem saying that cannibalism and genocide is objectively immoral. Why should I think any way else? Just because some people are of the opinion that it is, matters not one tittle. We do not murder because we want to live.

This is not something I assumed everybody believes. Believe me, I know that many atheists mistakenly think that morality is relative. No, it is not. Morality is contextual. Not the same thing.

Culture is subjective. There is no objective boundary for a culture. There is, however, an objective boundary for an individual. And the sact that every individual makes moral choices is not subjective.

We must make the difference between proscriptive and descriptive, as Franc mentioned.

Francois Tremblay said...

Cannibalism is objectively evil because the initiation of force is objectively evil. Obvious. I can't beleive a grown human being is arguing with me on the morality of cannibalism.

"There is no fact upon which you can base the moral judgment,"

It's called living in society, imbecile.

bleedingisaac said...

Okay asshole,

Why is cannibalism objectively evil? Why is the initiation of force objectively evil? What logical principle precludes it?

And what the fuck with your "imbecile" comment you dickless bastard? Do you think you've fucking solved ethical theory by holding to prescriptivism? Sure, utilitarianism/consequentualism is probably the most popular ethical formulation today, but moral relativism is held by Wong and Harman and is the principle school of thought at Princeton (mostly because of Harman).

Read the link that I posted in my original comment you piece of shit because I think it makes a fucking good case for moral relativism.

An what kind of fucking pussy-ass name is francois anyway you fucking moronic asshole?

bleedingisaac said...

In the love of Christ.

Francois Tremblay said...

Hello fuckwit.

"Why is cannibalism objectively evil?"

Because the initiation of force is objectively evil.


"Why is the initiation of force objectively evil?"

Because the trader principle (principle of voluntary exchange) is objectively good. Dealing with people on a voluntary basis reaps more rewards for ourselves than dealing with people with violence or coercion.


"And what the fuck with your "imbecile" comment you dickless bastard?"

Shut the fuck up.


"Do you think you've fucking solved ethical theory by holding to prescriptivism?"

Not me you idiots, there are people who wrote about this before me. Read David Kelley's Logical Structure of Objectivism, you fuckwit. He justifies every single value and virtue from a logical standpoint.


"Sure, utilitarianism/consequentualism is probably the most popular ethical formulation today"

Fuck you Nazi bastard. I bet you support killing the elderly because they don't benefit society, do you ?


"Read the link that I posted in my original comment you piece of shit because I think it makes a fucking good case for moral relativism."

NO ONE IS A MORAL RELATIVIST YOU IDIOT. NO ONE. NOT EVEN YOU, IGNORANT SLUT.


"An what kind of fucking pussy-ass name is francois anyway you fucking moronic asshole?"

I'm from Quebec you ignorant, chauvinist American pig. I'm sorry that you feel so threatened by other languages that you have to lash out.

bleedingisaac said...

Hey, you dipshit!

It's clear that you have no fucking clue what moral relativism means you worthless, brainless fucker.

You've defined moral relativism with your own typical fucking retarded definition and have dismissed it (if your fucking strawman only had a fucking brain).

"the trader principle (principle of voluntary exchange) is objectively good. Dealing with people on a voluntary basis reaps more rewards for ourselves than dealing with people with violence or coercion."

Has this been proven by induction? Has it been proven that every person who 'dealt with someone on a voluntary basis reaps more rewards for themselves than if they dealt with people with violence'?

Why is gaining rewards for yourself an objective moral good? If I was as fucking stupid as you, I'd want to punish myself for myself for my worthlessness.

"Shut the fuck up!"

You shut the fuck up, bitch!

I'm not saying that you invented prescriptivism you dumb fuck. I'm saying that it is one ethical theory among many, and it's only the thinking of a truly stupid mother fucker that thinks he can dismiss all other theories without knowing what the fuck they are.

"I bet you support killing the elderly because they don't benefit society, do you ?"

I don't know, it depends how old you are, you shit.

"NO ONE IS A MORAL RELATIVIST YOU IDIOT. NO ONE. NOT EVEN YOU, IGNORANT SLUT."

Your probably right that no one is a moral relativist by your definition you witless, shit-fucking asshole!

Gilbert Harman holds an endowed chair in ethics at Princeton and is the chair of the committee for cognitive studies there. He is a moral relativist. David Wong is the philosophy department chair at Duke and he is a moral relativist, you dick!

"I'm sorry that you feel so threatened by other languages that you have to lash out."

Your the asshole that had to "lash out" you fucking prick. You started this shit, dick for brains.

And since you don't feel like reading my post, here is the relevant parts of it:

Some truths are relative. If I were to stand up in my class and start screaming, "Sweet fuck! My pen is moving! Blessed shit! My pen is moving!" my students might think that I have lost my mind. They would look at me standing and screaming and at my pen perfectly stationary on my desk. A brave student might say, "Mr. M you're crazy. Your pen isn't moving." I could respond, however, "Isn't it true that the continents are drifting at a rate of 65mm per year? Isn't it true that the Earth is quickly rotating on its axis? Isn't it true that the Earth revolves around the sun? Isn't it true that we are on an outer spoke in a spinning galaxy that rotates around its center? Isn't it true that all of the galaxies are speeding away from each other? All of this motion and you say that my pen isn't moving?!"

In that strange conversation both my student and I are correct. My pen is not moving in relation to the other items on my desk. It is perfectly reasonable for my students to look at me like I am crazy from the perspective of the spatio-temporal framework of our class. At the same time, however, my claim that my pen is moving is certainly correct from the perspective of many other spatio-temporal frameworks.

In the discussion of motion, there is no one, true spatio-temporal framework by which to judge all other motion. There is no one place to stand and judge whether a things motion is universal. All motion is relative to something else.

Harman argues that the same is true of morality. Just like motion is always relative to a chosen spatio-temporal framework, so morality is relative to a chosen moral framework, and there is no one, true framework from which all other moral actions can be universally judged. All moral judgments are relative to s particular perspective.

This certainly appears to be the case in human experience. Moral values vary strikingly between cultures. It would be hard to suggest that there is any moral value that is universally held. Examples of this abound.

The Greek historian, Heroditus, records an instance during the reign of Darius the Great. Darius asked some Greeks to a feast. He asked them how much money it would take for his guests to eat their dead parents. The Greeks said that there could be no enticement to participate in this immoral act. Darius then called in members of an Indian tribe called Callatiae and asked them what he could offer them to get them to bury or cremate their parents' corpses, and the tribespeople cried out that they could never participate in that immorality. They thought it a dishonor to do away with the bodies like that. They actually ate their dead relatives as a way to insure the immortality of that loved one. It would be dishonorable to that dead relative to burn or bury the body because then they would not live on.

Even today, some tribes are cannibalistic though most of the world think this act is immoral. In some societies, polygamy is the rule. In others, polygamy is condemned. Some societies have caste systems, some support slavery, etc. It is difficult to think of even one 'immoral' act that is recognized by every society.

This leads one to ask, "If morality is objective, why isn't it practiced objectively?"

It is better to suggest that morality is not universally objective, but rather, depends on one's chosen moral framework (just like motion depends on one's chosen spatio-temporal framework). Harman writes, "For the purposes of assigning truth conditions, a judgment of the form, it would be morally wrong of P to D, has to be understood as elliptical for a judgment of the form, in relation to moral framework M, it would be morally wrong of P to D. In other words, saying that it is morally wrong of Paul to Dance is an incomplete assertion. It must be reworked so that it reads, "According to Michael it is morally wrong of Paul to Dance." Just as statements about motion require a chosen spatio-temporal framework, so statements of a moral nature require a chosen moral framework.

This is where most Christians construct a strawman argument. The argument usually has something to do with violence. The Christian could say something like, "Well, if morality is dependent on a moral framework, my moral framework says that it is okay to win this debate by shooting you in the head." [This was Greg Bahnsen's argument in his debate with Gordon Stein.] It is thought that if the relativist objects, she is appealing to universal, objective morality and her argument is defeated.

The reason that this is a strawman is that it ignores the fact that moral statements can be made from moral frameworks. I can say that it is morally wrong for P to D as long as I understand that I am speaking from my own framework. I can object to Bahnsen's violent act. I can say that his act would be morally wrong from my framework. He could, of course, deny my framework and say that from his framework it is morally right. At this point, it becomes a question of power (as is the case in all of life). Certain moral frameworks are supported by power structures.

There was a great example of this yesterday. Andy Roddick and Roger Federer played for the Wimbledon title. Roddick has lost to Federer three times in a row. After the match, they were asking Roddick what he could do to beat Federer and Andy joked, "Maybe next time, I'll punch him." But if Roddick punched Federer and declared himself the winner, would anyone go along with him? Would they give him the trophy? Would the crowd cheer? No. He would be arrested, boo-ed, and kicked out of the tournament.

This is exactly what would happen to the Christian who decided to shoot someone to win a debate. He may be morally justified within his own moral framework, but because of the way that power is handled in the context of most of contemporary society, his "victory" will be a shallow one. The power behind the relative moral condemnation of violence in discussion would not support his moral decision.

For a moral act to be approved or condemned does not require that it be objective and universal. It only requires a power structure with the ability to enforce a particular perspective. Does that mean that the power structure is always right? Obviously not. For example, I think that it is morally abhorrent that homosexuals are not granted equal marital rights in the United States. Most people in this country, however, disagree with me. Do I have to accept their moral judgments? No. I do have to recognize, though, that I have little ability to do anything about it. I can use whatever power I have to get the country to adopt my moral framework whether they agree with it or not.

All moral law is a kind of power struggle. Or, better, it is an act of moral bargaining. Harman states that all morality represents a compromise between people of different powers and resources. The strongest moral laws are the ones in which the greatest number of people have an interest in. Everyone benefits from moral laws that condemn violence. Only the weak and poor, however, truly benefit from moral laws that command the strong and wealthy to help the poor and weak avoid harm. The strong and wealthy have the resources to avoid harm on their own. They don't need (much?) help from anyone else. Moral laws that condemn violence are stronger than moral laws that command people to help others. In the US, for example, there are strict penalties for violent actions, but there is no penalty for being greedy with one's resources. You cannot be arrested for refusing to give to the poor.

This argument is similar to the one made by defenders of capitalism. They reason that 'the market' is self-regulating. Inferior or harmful products will be rejected by consumers, so only companies that produce superior and helpful products will last. Similarly, moral laws that benefit everyone will be the strongest, and moral laws that hurt a group will not last because, eventually, that group will rise up and threaten the safety of the entire group. In other words, it is in a society's best interest to use its power to support moral frameworks that are beneficial to the majority of the population.

Francois Tremblay said...

Hi again fuckwit.


"You've defined moral relativism with your own typical fucking retarded definition and have dismissed it (if your fucking strawman only had a fucking brain)."

Idiot, let me quote your own posts :

"There is no fact upon which you can base the moral judgment, it is morally wrong for Hitler to exterminate Jews."

You just came out and said outright that there's no basis to say Hitler was morally wrong, you imbecile. That tells us everything we need to know.

Moral relativism is the belief that whatever a person decides is moral, is moral for himself. So if you decide that murdering the elderly is morally valid, then you're perfectly justified to do it. Cultural relativism is the extended belief that whatever a "culture" decides is morally valid. Not quite the same thing, but both have the same blatant disregard for facts and other human beings.


"Has this been proven by induction?"

No, it's been proven logically.


"Has it been proven that every person who 'dealt with someone on a voluntary basis reaps more rewards for themselves than if they dealt with people with violence'?"

That's not what morality says you fuckwit. It doesn't say that "every single person" who acts morally will have a better life. Ever heard of circumstances you fuckwit ? Do you think every moral person living in Nazi Germany had a great live, idiot ?


"Why is gaining rewards for yourself an objective moral good?"

That's not even a meaningful question, idiot. I think your feeble retarded mind is trying to grasp the phrase "fulfilling your values" and failing miserably.


"I'm saying that it is one ethical theory among many"

No it's not, you fuckwit. That's like saying Neo-Darwinism is "only one theory about the diversity of life". IT'S THE ONLY SCIENTIFIC ONE !


"I don't know, it depends how old you are, you shit."

Wow, you truly are a murderous shit. You really support killing the elderly ? And YOU want to tell US about morality ?

Wow.

Please die.

Hellbound Alleee said...

Bleeding Isaac:

"An what kind of fucking pussy-ass name is francois anyway you fucking moronic asshole?"

You lost, Bleeding Isaac. And not just "it." However, regardless of the effort you put in to make me believe otherwise, I don't think you really are racist or homophobic. I don't want to say it, but I hjave to at this point, respond by saying "what kind of Jew name is isaac? Are you some kind of pussy accountant or dentist?" Same thing.

You lose.

Francois Tremblay said...

I'm sorry, but I must abandon this discussion. I can explain the illogic of coercion, but I'm not going to discuss reasonably with someone who seriously advocates killing the elderly. Either he's lying or he's crazy, and I really really really hope he's lying.

Hellbound Alleee said...

Thread closed.