Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

][)ick}{ea][) · 10-12-2003, 09:26 AM

I'm an atheist. That didn't come with a free Darwin membership card either. I'm a free thinker and a dreamer and a lover of the chaotic moment. I've always lived in the right now, after all, at what point in your life has it ever not been right now? You were born in a right now and you live in a right now and you'll die in a right now. Without God, there is no longer any objective standard by which to judge good and evil. This realization was very troubling to philosophers a few decades ago, but it hasn't really had much of an effect in other circles. Most people still seem to think that a universal morality can be grounded in something other than God' laws: in what is good for people, in what is good for society, in what we feel called upon to do. But explanations of why these standards necessarily constitute "universal moral law" are hard to come by. Usually, the arguments for the existence of moral law are emotional rather than rational: "But don't you think RAPE is wrong?" moralists ask, as if a shared opinion were a proof of universal truth. "But don't you think people need to believe in something greater than themselves?" they appeal, as if needing to believe in something can make it true. Occasionally, they even resort to threats: "but what would happen if everyone decided that there is no good or evil? Wouldn't we all kill each other?"
The real problem with the idea of universal moral law is that it asserts the existence of something that we have no way to know anything about. Believers in good and evil would have us believe that there are "moral truths" -that is, there are things that are morally true of this word, in the same why that it is true that the sky is blue. They claim that it is true of this world that murder is morally wrong just as it is true that water freezes at thirty-two degrees. But we can investigate the freezing temperature of water: we can measure it and agree together that we have arrived at some kind of "objective" truth, insofar as such a thing is possible. On the other hand, what do we observe if we want to investigate whether it is true that murder is evil? There is no tablet of moral law on a mountaintop for us to consult, there are no commandments carved into the sky above us; all we have to go on are our own instincts and the words of a bunch of priests and other self-appointed moral experts, many of whom can't even agree amongst themselves. As for the words of the religious and the moralists, if they can't offer any hard evidence from this world, why should we believe their claims? And regarding our instincts-if we feel that something is right or wrong, that may make it right or wrong for us, but that's not proof that it is UNIVERSALLY good or evil. Thus, the idea that there are universal moral laws is mere supersstition: it is a claim that things exist in this world which we can never actually experience or learn anything about. And we would do well not to waste our time wondering about things we can never know anything about.
When two people disagree over right and wrong, there is no way to resolve the debate. There is nothing in this world to which they can refer to see which one is correct-because there really are no moral laws, just personal evaluations. So the only important question is where your values come from: do you create them yourself, according to your own desired, or do you accept them from someone else... someone else who has disguised their opinions as "morality?"

I believe that there is no universal moral code that should dictate human behavior. There is no such thing as good or evil, there is no universal standard of right and wrong. Our values and morals come from us and belong to us, whether we like it or not, so we should claim them proudly for ourselves, as our own creations, rather than seeking some external justification for them.

Climbing off the soapbox...backing away...

10-12-2003, 09:26 AM	#58 (permalink)
][)ick}{ea][) Upright Location: A little town that should be bulldozed and paved over to make a parking lot for something worthwhile.	I'm an atheist. That didn't come with a free Darwin membership card either. I'm a free thinker and a dreamer and a lover of the chaotic moment. I've always lived in the right now, after all, at what point in your life has it ever not been right now? You were born in a right now and you live in a right now and you'll die in a right now. Without God, there is no longer any objective standard by which to judge good and evil. This realization was very troubling to philosophers a few decades ago, but it hasn't really had much of an effect in other circles. Most people still seem to think that a universal morality can be grounded in something other than God' laws: in what is good for people, in what is good for society, in what we feel called upon to do. But explanations of why these standards necessarily constitute "universal moral law" are hard to come by. Usually, the arguments for the existence of moral law are emotional rather than rational: "But don't you think RAPE is wrong?" moralists ask, as if a shared opinion were a proof of universal truth. "But don't you think people need to believe in something greater than themselves?" they appeal, as if needing to believe in something can make it true. Occasionally, they even resort to threats: "but what would happen if everyone decided that there is no good or evil? Wouldn't we all kill each other?" The real problem with the idea of universal moral law is that it asserts the existence of something that we have no way to know anything about. Believers in good and evil would have us believe that there are "moral truths" -that is, there are things that are morally true of this word, in the same why that it is true that the sky is blue. They claim that it is true of this world that murder is morally wrong just as it is true that water freezes at thirty-two degrees. But we can investigate the freezing temperature of water: we can measure it and agree together that we have arrived at some kind of "objective" truth, insofar as such a thing is possible. On the other hand, what do we observe if we want to investigate whether it is true that murder is evil? There is no tablet of moral law on a mountaintop for us to consult, there are no commandments carved into the sky above us; all we have to go on are our own instincts and the words of a bunch of priests and other self-appointed moral experts, many of whom can't even agree amongst themselves. As for the words of the religious and the moralists, if they can't offer any hard evidence from this world, why should we believe their claims? And regarding our instincts-if we feel that something is right or wrong, that may make it right or wrong for us, but that's not proof that it is UNIVERSALLY good or evil. Thus, the idea that there are universal moral laws is mere supersstition: it is a claim that things exist in this world which we can never actually experience or learn anything about. And we would do well not to waste our time wondering about things we can never know anything about. When two people disagree over right and wrong, there is no way to resolve the debate. There is nothing in this world to which they can refer to see which one is correct-because there really are no moral laws, just personal evaluations. So the only important question is where your values come from: do you create them yourself, according to your own desired, or do you accept them from someone else... someone else who has disguised their opinions as "morality?" I believe that there is no universal moral code that should dictate human behavior. There is no such thing as good or evil, there is no universal standard of right and wrong. Our values and morals come from us and belong to us, whether we like it or not, so we should claim them proudly for ourselves, as our own creations, rather than seeking some external justification for them. Climbing off the soapbox...backing away... __________________ Basically, if you don't agree with everything I say... you're stupid.