5 ms·

I don't have a religion or a personal God, so by definition I'm atheist, but I'm also open to using the term God as a metaphor for a creating force (anything th

I don't have a religion or a personal God, so by definition I'm atheist, but I'm also open to using the term God as a metaphor for a creating force (anything that initiated the universe) which puts me in the new-age-y spirituality and agnostic camps but doesn't anthropomorphise a God, define my moral code or add magical/superstitious decorations. My moral code is based around the Golden Rule, but not because someone or something said I should - it's because it's logical and purest form of fairness. So perhaps a lot more people come under the Humanist umbrella, which generally share the same beliefs and moral codes when applied to the world around them, whether they possess a belief in a non-anthropomorphised God or not. That aspect of belief is just semantic.

vivekd 9y ago
>My moral code is based around the Golden Rule, but not because someone or something said I should - it's because it's logical and purest form of fairness. No it's not logical, it's completely irrational. If someone has something you want, and there is no way to get it, the rational thing to do is kill them and take it. If we wish to kill him while still being in a society where we won't get killed ourselves the solution is to kill them in secret in a method that makes it as likely as possible that you won't get caught while publicly supporting laws forbidding murder. Saying that morality is rational is a cop-out answer. If morality were rational we would live in a world where people rarely do anything immoral because they realize it would be irrational to do so. The reason morality is even an issue is because immoral actions are rational where we can derive a benefit from them and not face consequences (either because we are very unlikely to get caught or there is no consequence for getting caught.) The golden rule is nice and all but it is most certainly not a rational principle - as evidenced by the fact that neither Jesus nor any of its other proponents have every tried to offer up rational justifications for it. Instead it was justified with "I'm God, do as I say," and that was the only justification ever offered for it. Even just now, you claimed it was rational but didn't even even attempt to give logical arguments in support of it. You merely asserted it was "the purest form of fairness" without either explaining why. Most definitions of fairness would find "eye for an eye" to be fair, fairness requires good for good and evil for evil. The Golden rule is not fair. Also fairness, while something that many people value, is not a logical principle, we do not derive the value of fairness from logical reasoning but human feelings. . . The universe and the world is rarely fair and the desire for fairness is often contrary to sound reason.
- flukus 9y ago
  > If we wish to kill him while still being in a society where we won't get killed ourselves kill them in secret in a method that makes it as likely as possible that you won't get caught while publicly supporting laws forbidding murder. If this was normalised then there would be more murdering and we would still be more likely to be murdered ourselves. It's rational that we don't want the world to be like this.
  - vivekd 9y ago
    But we don't have to normalize every thing we do. This whole "act in a way that everything you do will become normalized" doesn't work because the rational person realizes that not everything they do will be normalized and acts accordingly. This can be found in Neithzche's philosophy when he talks about master and slave ethics. Neithzche said that slaves will follow what custom dictates, but masters will make their own ethics. This seems abhorrent to me, however, in a world without a God dictating things and a hell for bad people, I must admit it is rational. Also the "act in a way that you would will all your actions be normalized" has already been proposed by Kant and has shown to not be workable as an ethical system. (Here's an article explaining why https://tigerpapers.net/2011/10/21/kants-morality/ https://tigerpapers.net/2011/10/21/kants-morality/)
    - eveningcoffee 9y ago
      Killing somebody needs great effort. Killing somebody secretly requires even greater effort. In addition killing involves large risk of getting killed instead. The risk increases when this practice becomes more common. It is simply easier and considerably less risky not do something like this. But there still exists people who argue similarly to your ideas and act based on them. These people are called murderous psychopaths.
- icanhackit 9y ago
  > No it's not logical, it's completely irrational. Are you suggesting that the Golden Rule must be a divine law because it couldn't come from human reasoning alone? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or in simpler, less frilly terms treat others as you would want them to treat you is a basic form of preemptive reciprocity which even monkeys can grasp. Using deductive reasoning: if we can devise something as complex as language to describe our ideas, we can devise simple maxims. > If someone has something you want, and there is no way to get it, the rational thing to do is kill them and take it. In a constrained game-theory setting where 1.) there are only two players and 2.) it's something critical to remaining alive and it can't be shared, then you might have an argument. But squishy reality doesn't play well with half thought out game theory scenarios. If everyone did what you suggest, we'd all be dead. Instead we cooperate because we're gifted with theory of mind. > If morality were rational we would live in a world where people rarely do anything immoral because they realize it would be irrational to do so. Faulty reasoning - your position assumes all people are rational all of the time. We're bags of chemicals which in optimal conditions can be rational. Thankfully we have mechanisms to record our thoughts, including the odd rational ones we have which can then stand up to the test of time and consideration.

vivekd 9y ago

>My moral code is based around the Golden Rule, but not because someone or something said I should - it's because it's logical and purest form of fairness. No it's not logical, it's completely irrational. If someone has something you want, and there is no way to get it, the rational thing to do is kill them and take it. If we wish to kill him while still being in a society where we won't get killed ourselves the solution is to kill them in secret in a method that makes it as likely as possible that you won't get caught while publicly supporting laws forbidding murder. Saying that morality is rational is a cop-out answer. If morality were rational we would live in a world where people rarely do anything immoral because they realize it would be irrational to do so. The reason morality is even an issue is because immoral actions are rational where we can derive a benefit from them and not face consequences (either because we are very unlikely to get caught or there is no consequence for getting caught.) The golden rule is nice and all but it is most certainly not a rational principle - as evidenced by the fact that neither Jesus nor any of its other proponents have every tried to offer up rational justifications for it. Instead it was justified with "I'm God, do as I say," and that was the only justification ever offered for it. Even just now, you claimed it was rational but didn't even even attempt to give logical arguments in support of it. You merely asserted it was "the purest form of fairness" without either explaining why. Most definitions of fairness would find "eye for an eye" to be fair, fairness requires good for good and evil for evil. The Golden rule is not fair. Also fairness, while something that many people value, is not a logical principle, we do not derive the value of fairness from logical reasoning but human feelings. . . The universe and the world is rarely fair and the desire for fairness is often contrary to sound reason.

flukus 9y ago
> If we wish to kill him while still being in a society where we won't get killed ourselves kill them in secret in a method that makes it as likely as possible that you won't get caught while publicly supporting laws forbidding murder. If this was normalised then there would be more murdering and we would still be more likely to be murdered ourselves. It's rational that we don't want the world to be like this.
- vivekd 9y ago
  But we don't have to normalize every thing we do. This whole "act in a way that everything you do will become normalized" doesn't work because the rational person realizes that not everything they do will be normalized and acts accordingly. This can be found in Neithzche's philosophy when he talks about master and slave ethics. Neithzche said that slaves will follow what custom dictates, but masters will make their own ethics. This seems abhorrent to me, however, in a world without a God dictating things and a hell for bad people, I must admit it is rational. Also the "act in a way that you would will all your actions be normalized" has already been proposed by Kant and has shown to not be workable as an ethical system. (Here's an article explaining why https://tigerpapers.net/2011/10/21/kants-morality/ https://tigerpapers.net/2011/10/21/kants-morality/)
  - eveningcoffee 9y ago
    Killing somebody needs great effort. Killing somebody secretly requires even greater effort. In addition killing involves large risk of getting killed instead. The risk increases when this practice becomes more common. It is simply easier and considerably less risky not do something like this. But there still exists people who argue similarly to your ideas and act based on them. These people are called murderous psychopaths.
icanhackit 9y ago
> No it's not logical, it's completely irrational. Are you suggesting that the Golden Rule must be a divine law because it couldn't come from human reasoning alone? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or in simpler, less frilly terms treat others as you would want them to treat you is a basic form of preemptive reciprocity which even monkeys can grasp. Using deductive reasoning: if we can devise something as complex as language to describe our ideas, we can devise simple maxims. > If someone has something you want, and there is no way to get it, the rational thing to do is kill them and take it. In a constrained game-theory setting where 1.) there are only two players and 2.) it's something critical to remaining alive and it can't be shared, then you might have an argument. But squishy reality doesn't play well with half thought out game theory scenarios. If everyone did what you suggest, we'd all be dead. Instead we cooperate because we're gifted with theory of mind. > If morality were rational we would live in a world where people rarely do anything immoral because they realize it would be irrational to do so. Faulty reasoning - your position assumes all people are rational all of the time. We're bags of chemicals which in optimal conditions can be rational. Thankfully we have mechanisms to record our thoughts, including the odd rational ones we have which can then stand up to the test of time and consideration.