A world without religion.

Eshkruar nga Acquiesce, 12.05.2017 at 21:58

Eshkruar nga Permamuted, 12.05.2017 at 20:39

Not at all, if that were my logic then a group of murderers could all get together and agree that they're a bunch of lovely guys. As you said about convenience that would indeed be great for them but not necessarily objectively true. We evolved as social animals over millions of years and all possess an instinct for what is right and wrong. There is empirical evidence that suggests this. We also possess the capacity to sit back and try to objectively determine why this is right or wrong. Me deciding not to murder you is a much more complicated decision than merely "muh feels" or convenience.

You're correct that it's a complicated decision. But you're dead wrong that it's an obvious one. You and I have been brought up in a very specific civilization and culture and because you are so used to people having these shared understandings regarding good and evil you think, well duh it's just so obvious that raping and murdering is bad. What's the big deal? Well I hate to break it to you but it isn't obvious at all. The idea that every human life has value. The idea that men should not be bought and sold like cattle. These are revolutionary concepts. And very intelligent people smarter than you and I can very well sit back and "objectively determine" that these actions are perfectly rational, moral, and excusable.

I would love to see the objective argument that a human life doesn't have value. Your path of reasoning leads to nihilism.

Eshkruar nga RaulPB, 13.05.2017 at 06:12

Eshkruar nga Acquiesce, 12.05.2017 at 14:28

How can you develop a "truly moral" ethics on your own? That's a contradiction in terms. If it's your own it's not truly moral. If it's truly moral it's not your own.

Either there is a natural law separate from humanity (i.e-God), or else it's just a code of ethics you and I develop out of convenience

Answer: because you have your own morals. All religion did was imposing a set of morals to a group of people. Something will be moral to a person as long as he knows what he's doing and that he knows he has made the right choice in his benefit. That's not really hard to develop, even babies can follow this simple logic.

Who said there must be a convenience or superior order to stablish morals? You can convince people of something being moral or immoral, but it's always down to personal judging. That being said, morals are something individually developed and sometimes imposed. That's what society does most of the time with its laws and prejudices.

But who taught these people morals? People didn't always see an elderly man marrying a 13 year old girl unacceptable, they adapted to what society viewed as right. People aren't just born with a certain view on what is right and wrong, they learn these things from the day they are born to the day they die. And who put these ideas into society? That's where the debate lies.

Eshkruar nga Wheelo, 13.05.2017 at 09:21

But who taught these people morals? People didn't always see an elderly man marrying a 13 year old girl unacceptable, they adapted to what society viewed as right. People aren't just born with a certain view on what is right and wrong, they learn these things from the day they are born to the day they die. And who put these ideas into society? That's where the debate lies.

Do animals have morals? Well, that's the initial question. Once these animals started to develop consciousness about themselves, they began to question what they were doing. That's the beging of the individual morals. Then, once these individuals started to organize themselves into little communities, these individual morals might have collapsed due to discussions or fights, resulting in adopting the strongest or more predominant moral for that community.

Morals are not taught, they naturally come along with our consciousness and our experiences (interactions with others and with our own life). They are subjective to ourselves. That's something that needs to be understood and accepted, they do not come due to divine enlightment.

Eshkruar nga Wheelo, 13.05.2017 at 09:06

Although I'm friends with many atheists and they're perfectly normal people, I have found that people with a serious grudge to religion are usually unhappy with themselves and see it as the "go to" topic to exert their negativity.

LMAO the stereotypes..... idk where you get that from, but sure

Eshkruar nga Permamuted, 13.05.2017 at 09:11

I would love to see the objective argument that a human life doesn't have value. Your path of reasoning leads to nihilism.

To be fair... I wonder what would have Hitler or Atila answered to that reasoning while murdering thousand of jews and entire villages respectively (just mere examples)

Eshkruar nga RaulPB, 13.05.2017 at 06:12

Something will be moral to a person as long as he knows what he's doing and that he knows he has made the right choice in his benefit.

but it's always down to personal judging.

Your argument is essentially moral relativism. So Hitler is moral as long as he knows what he's doing and made the right choice in his benefit. Solid reasoning

Eshkruar nga Permamuted, 13.05.2017 at 09:11

I would love to see the objective argument that a human life doesn't have value. Your path of reasoning leads to nihilism.

I would love to see your argument that it does has value! One that doesn't appeal to any religious language or presuppositions. All you can offer are half-baked ideas regarding social utility vis a vis evolution.

Ironic that you should bring up nihilism. Do you not understand that it's a philosophical doctrine that directly follows a rejection of natural law and Christian/Pagan worldviews? My reasoning is literally the opposite of it. Read a summary of Nietzsche's Will to Power, where he literally predicts the postmodern nihilism that characterized the 20th century.

Eshkruar nga RaulPB, 13.05.2017 at 09:50

Eshkruar nga Wheelo, 13.05.2017 at 09:21

But who taught these people morals? People didn't always see an elderly man marrying a 13 year old girl unacceptable, they adapted to what society viewed as right. People aren't just born with a certain view on what is right and wrong, they learn these things from the day they are born to the day they die. And who put these ideas into society? That's where the debate lies.

Do animals have morals? Well, that's the initial question. Once these animals started to develop consciousness about themselves, they began to question what they were doing. That's the beging of the individual morals. Then, once these individuals started to organize themselves into little communities, these individual morals might have collapsed due to discussions or fights, resulting in adopting the strongest or more predominant moral for that community.

Morals are not taught, they naturally come along with our consciousness and our experiences (interactions with others and with our own life). They are subjective to ourselves. That's something that needs to be understood and accepted, they do not come due to divine enlightment.

You just proved my point. "Experiences" are what teach you

Eshkruar nga Wheelo, 13.05.2017 at 10:07

You just proved my point. "Experiences" are what teach you

I proved my own point, do not read just what suits you:

Eshkruar nga Wheelo, 13.05.2017 at 09:21

But who taught these people morals?

Morals are not taught, they naturally come along with our consciousness (predetermined) and our experiences (interactions with others and with our own life).

Eshkruar nga Wheelo, 13.05.2017 at 09:21

they adapted to what society viewed as right.

Not always true. Again, depends on their subjective opinion as well as their surroundings (with others and with their own selves!)

Eshkruar nga Wheelo, 13.05.2017 at 09:21

People aren't just born with a certain view on what is right and wrong, they learn these things from the day they are born to the day they die.

They do not come to this world with predetermined ideas like a computer would have because they don't even know what the experience is or how should they react to it (no one sees the future, we're ignorant). But once we do experience this certain situation, we inmediately develop our own opinion which is predetermined by our personality and/or older experiences. So in certain way we are predetermined.

Eshkruar nga Wheelo, 13.05.2017 at 09:21

And who put these ideas into society? That's where the debate lies.

Again, someone developed his own individual moral and then...

Eshkruar nga RaulPB, 13.05.2017 at 09:50

Then, once these individuals started to organize themselves into little communities, these individual morals might have collapsed due to discussions or fights, resulting in adopting the strongest or more predominant moral for that community.

In the end, some people made up our morals. This does not mean at all that this whole community has the same exact moral since still everyone has his own opinion and is critical to what happens around him.

Eshkruar nga Acquiesce, 13.05.2017 at 10:07

Your argument is essentially moral relativism. So Hitler is moral as long as he knows what he's doing and made the right choice in his benefit. Solid reasoning

Yes, basically yes. Now comes the hardest part: judging. Did killing so many jews benefit him in any significant way? I have no idea how could that benefit him so I don't see it moral... someone else could see a huge benefit in doing such thing and consider it moral, idk about that. Judging can be brutally subjective sometimes... a perfect example for this is the capital punishment. Some people might say it is moral, others might not.

It might sounds stupid and numb to some (specially to those whose dear friends were killed, hurt or affected since it does not benefit them personally in any way), but we cannnot just summarize our morals into some sort of predetermined rules written in a nearly recent book about some guy and his adventures in this world, specially considering how many people in this world have had so different perspectives and actions.

Eshkruar nga RaulPB, 13.05.2017 at 10:37

Yes, basically yes. Now comes the hardest part: judging. Did killing so many jews benefit him in any significant way? I have no idea how could that benefit him so I don't see it moral... someone else could see a huge benefit in doing such thing and consider it moral, idk about that. Judging can be brutally subjective sometimes... a perfect example for this is the capital punishment. Some people might say it is moral, others might not.

It might sounds stupid and numb to some (specially those whose dear friends were killed), but we cannnot just summarize our morals into some sort of predetermined rules written in a nearly recent book about some guy and his adventures in this world, specially considering how many people in this world have had so different perspectives and actions.

So your criteria is just that it benefits you? That's a simple justification for theft, rape, and murder. I can very easily judge these all as beneficial to me... that makes them moral actions?

Nobody here is suggesting you can just look into a book and get all the answers to every moral question. You can recognize that truth exists without claiming to know the answer to every question. In the same way you can recognize morality is objective without claiming to know right from wrong 100% of the time.

Eshkruar nga boywind2, 13.05.2017 at 00:55

Eshkruar nga Guest, 12.05.2017 at 23:27

It exists for sure. But I believe simpletons are somehow more...smart, astute w/e. You may get retarded by reading too much and you can avoid the essentials of life

Eshkruar nga Acquiesce, 13.05.2017 at 10:50

So your criteria is just that it benefits you? That's a simple justification for theft, rape, and murder. I can very easily judge these all as beneficial to me... that makes them moral actions?

Nobody here is suggesting you can just look into a book and get all the answers to every moral question. You can recognize that truth exists without claiming to know the answer to every question. In the same way you can recognize morality is objective without claiming to know right from wrong 100% of the time.

To you, to me, to us, they are not moral because they do not benefit us in any way. Whatsmore, they hurt another person. But to themselves, they are being moral, that's precisely why they are doing it. Remember that judging can be quite subjective and depends on many factors. What we see, they won't and viceversa.

Morality has never and will never be objective or else we would all approve and behave the same.

Eshkruar nga RaulPB, 13.05.2017 at 17:13

Morality has never and will never be objective or else we would all approve and behave the same.

I'm afraid we're going to keep going in circles if you can't even understand the point I'm making here. Yes, they think they are being moral, but if you believe in any kind of objective moral code, only then can you make a claim that they are truly wrong.

I don't think you understand what objective morality means. It doesn't mean at all that everyone agrees about what is right vs wrong. It just means that certain actions are truly good while others are truly bad, rather than an action being good or bad only as a subjective preference. It means a natural law that is real and true and binding no matter what one thinks about it or whether one chooses to follow it.

Eshkruar nga Acquiesce, 13.05.2017 at 17:55

I'm afraid we're going to keep going in circles if you can't even understand the point I'm making here. Yes, they think they are being moral, but if you believe in any kind of objective moral code, only then can you make a claim that they are truly wrong.

I don't think you understand what objective morality means. It doesn't mean at all that everyone agrees about what is right vs wrong. It just means that certain actions are truly good while others are truly bad, rather than an action being good or bad only as a subjective preference. It means a natural law that is real and true and binding no matter what one thinks about it or whether one chooses to follow it.

There is no kind of objective moral code. Absolutely non. Just imposed or arbitrarily agreed moral codes, but non of them is or will ever be objective.

And ofc I know what you mean, but there's never something 100% truly good or bad. It all depends on the perspective, on the circunstances and context, on the aim, on the intention, on the personal beliefs, on their own personality. There's no such thing as something purely evil or purely benign. There's no way to content every single personality in this world.

Just another simple example: atomic energy. Great stuff, great discovery, many possibilities and aplications, many knowledge, etc. Yet, even if it wasn't the real purpose of its discovery, it was used against what would be Einstein's initial idea. It was applied into weaponry. The result, the death of many people and many other born disabled and a continuos threat of an atomic war begining in any moment. Moraly, the initial discovery was awsome. But as time went by, the morality could be argued. Now, we are kinda dependant on those non renewable resources, we are creating thousand of kilos of radioactive waste spread around the world, we've had several disasters involving nuclear power plants and lots of polution and health issues, etc. Was it a moral discovery? I guess so, the advantages outweight the disadvantages for now. Wait until the 3rd world war happens and then the disadvantages will have hugely outweighted the advantages. Will it then be moral? Not so much.

Actions will always have pros and cons, it will barely ever be all pros or all cons. And meanwhile you can focus more on the pros, I can focus on the cons and others can simply focus on both. Subjectivism (personal judgement) is always present.

Im dying to prove Aqui wrong...i just dont have the arguments xD I do believe theres some obvious objective morality though, but only for a portion. Some things are too complicated and we are not knowledgeable and advanced enough to make an accurate assumption.

Carry on

Eshkruar nga Khal.eesi, 13.05.2017 at 19:34

Im dying to prove Aqui wrong...i just dont have the arguments xD I do believe theres some obvious objective morality though, but only for a portion. Some things are too complicated and we are not knowledgeable and advanced enough to make an accurate assumption.

Carry on

And I'm dying to be told what objective morality is there that everyone sees the exact same way and values it the same exact way under any given context... I'm not able to think of a single one yet, pls prove me wrong! Is there something in which all AW agrees for example? Something which every single one of us could agree on no matter what or who?

Eshkruar nga RaulPB, 13.05.2017 at 20:16

And I'm dying to be told what objective morality is there that everyone sees the exact same way and values it the same exact way under any given context... I'm not able to think of a single one yet, pls prove me wrong! Is there something in which all AW agrees for example? Something which every single one of us could agree on no matter what or who?

Nope, but again the fact that we can't agree on what is good and what is bad says literally nothing about whether morality is objective or relative. It doesn't speak to the question which you continue to dodge, I assume because you don't understand the nature of it. Objective morality simply means that there are moral facts, in the same way that there are physical facts. People can disagree about the moral ones just as people disagree about physical ones. For ex: I say the earth is an oblate sphere, some dude on the Internet says it's flat, some Hindu mystic thinks it's the back of a giant space tortoise. The fact that people have different answers does not mean there is no objective truth.

Eshkruar nga Acquiesce, 14.05.2017 at 08:20

Nope, but again the fact that we can't agree on what is good and what is bad says literally nothing about whether morality is objective or relative. It doesn't speak to the question which you continue to dodge, I assume because you don't understand the nature of it. Objective morality simply means that there are moral facts, in the same way that there are physical facts. People can disagree about the moral ones just as people disagree about physical ones. For ex: I say the earth is an oblate sphere, some dude on the Internet says it's flat, some Hindu mystic thinks it's the back of a giant space tortoise. The fact that people have different answers does not mean there is no objective truth.

Again, I understand perfectly, again, you're the one not paying attention to my words, and, again, THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORAL OR MORAL FACTS. How many times do I have to repeat that? And you still haven't told me what or where are there these moral facts it's just something you (or someone else) have made up

Btw, you can't possibly compare physics with morals, one is science and follows a systematic research while the other are simple subjective rules.... and you (nor anyone) don't have the moral superiority to affirm that your -subjective- moral is the best one while a scientist may have the upperhand regarding knowledge and research in order to confirm certain facts.

Eshkruar nga RaulPB, 13.05.2017 at 20:16

Eshkruar nga Khal.eesi, 13.05.2017 at 19:34

Im dying to prove Aqui wrong...i just dont have the arguments xD I do believe theres some obvious objective morality though, but only for a portion. Some things are too complicated and we are not knowledgeable and advanced enough to make an accurate assumption.

Carry on

And I'm dying to be told what objective morality is there that everyone sees the exact same way and values it the same exact way under any given context... I'm not able to think of a single one yet, pls prove me wrong! Is there something in which all AW agrees for example? Something which every single one of us could agree on no matter what or who?

Sam Harris, a brilliant neuroscientist, philosopher, researcher and educator and a fierce debater, has made a lot of speeches (longer than the one i posted) about morality and how its marriage with science, is a logical and fruitful endeavor.

He recently wrote a book aswell, to support his main argument that there is objective morality, just like there is objective truths and objective medicine/health. We are in a position to link science and morality and decide on universal objective morality and values, but our knowledge and understanding of the brain only allows for a certain level. We need more research in that direction, to answer the harder questions, the exceptions, the deviations and etc.

That being said, his whole thesis relies on the presuppositions that we should strive for the maximum well being of every conscious being and the minimum of the suffering and misery of every conscious being.

His prime examples are the Muslim world and he is very critical about it. He has been called an egotistical genocide advocate and a nazi by muslim apologists in the intellectual world (and not only) just by claiming that there are objective moral violations in the Muslim world.

For example force-dressing women in sheets and torturing or murdering them if they disobey, is not subjective according to the culture of the territory that these heinous acts take place. Its very much objective, it is wrong, it is bad, it is immoral, it is a situation of misery and suffering forced upon conscious living beings without any positive effects on the well being of others.

Eshkruar nga Khal.eesi, 14.05.2017 at 10:23

We are in a position to link science and morality and decide on universal objective morality and values

You said it yourself, DECIDE. Thus meaning there is no objective moral and it's all about pacts and general convention.

Eshkruar nga Khal.eesi, 14.05.2017 at 10:23

That being said, his whole thesis relies on the presuppositions that we should strive for the maximum well being of every conscious being and the minimum of the suffering and misery of every conscious being.

In other words, he plans on imposing his own ideal and morals on the millions of other morals in the world. That's not objective. Again, that's just a convention, an agreement, something in which a certain amount of people can agree (can be even considered authoritarian or dictatorial). It's hard enough to convince someone of changing his morals, let alone to control them and impose them! That's basically his utopia, not too "realistic" to me.

PS: don't get me wrong, I'm not judging wether I personally agree with his idea. I'm just analysing what you said and our topic on objective/subjective morals. Btw, I strongly disagree with there being any possibility of linking science with morals. They are both independant as science seeks pure knowledge without any moral content in it, so he's basically talking bs to me.

Eshkruar nga RaulPB, 14.05.2017 at 09:03

THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORAL

So you are a moral relativist. That's nice but this is a discussion about moral objectivism and whether it can logically exist without some kind of religious foundation. Those who don't believe in any objective morality like yourself don't really have any seat at this debate.

Eshkruar nga Khal.eesi, 14.05.2017 at 10:23

Sam Harris, a brilliant neuroscientist, philosopher, researcher and educator and a fierce debater, has made a lot of speeches (longer than the one i posted) about morality and how its marriage with science, is a logical and fruitful endeavor.

He recently wrote a book aswell, to support his main argument that there is objective morality, just like there is objective truths and objective medicine/health. We are in a position to link science and morality and decide on universal objective morality and values, but our knowledge and understanding of the brain only allows for a certain level. We need more research in that direction, to answer the harder questions, the exceptions, the deviations and etc.

That being said, his whole thesis relies on the presuppositions that we should strive for the maximum well being of every conscious being and the minimum of the suffering and misery of every conscious being.

His prime examples are the Muslim world and he is very critical about it. He has been called an egotistical genocide advocate and a nazi by muslim apologists in the intellectual world (and not only) just by claiming that there are objective moral violations in the Muslim world.

For example force-dressing women in sheets and torturing or murdering them if they disobey, is not subjective according to the culture of the territory that these heinous acts take place. Its very much objective, it is wrong, it is bad, it is immoral, it is a situation of misery and suffering forced upon conscious living beings without any positive effects on the well being of others.

I respect Harris as a scientist and for his candor regarding Islam, but frankly he is not much of a philosopher and little of what I've read concerning his arguments for a secular morality are convincing. As you say, his whole thesis basically relies on a kind of scientific utilitarian model, but he never gives any justification for why we should care about the well being of conscious things. Nor does he properly define and justify what "well being" entails. To say that science, the study of what is, can have something to say about what ought to be is a misunderstanding of science and morality both.

My issue with the New Atheists crowd (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett) on this topic is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. The old atheists like Nietzsche and Sartre rejected religion and also had the logical consistency to reject objective morality along with it, admitting that the two go hand in hand.

Eshkruar nga Acquiesce, 14.05.2017 at 11:45

So you are a moral relativist. That's nice but this is a discussion about moral objectivism and whether it can logically exist without some kind of religious foundation. Those who don't believe in any objective morality like yourself don't really have any seat at this debate.

You're 101% wrong, it does not have anything to do with moral objectivism, we simply reached this point in which I am telling you there is no moral fact and you still haven't pointed out any of those facts yet. You may read the thread again and try to rectify on that.

Eshkruar nga Sanguinare, 11.05.2017 at 13:05

Do you think the world would be a better place without Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.?

Eshkruar nga Acquiesce, 12.05.2017 at 14:28

Eshkruar nga RaulPB, 12.05.2017 at 06:32

Eshkruar nga Sanguinare, 12.05.2017 at 01:54

However, we have received many of our morals and ethics from religions. Without religions, surely these morals would vanish.

That doesn't mean these ethics are truly moral or that we can't be able to develop our own.

How can you develop a "truly moral" ethics on your own? That's a contradiction in terms. If it's your own it's not truly moral. If it's truly moral it's not your own.

Either there is a natural law separate from humanity (i.e-God), or else it's just a code of ethics you and I develop out of convenience

And so on.

Also, moral ojectivism still can't exist, with or without a religiuos foundation, specially since each religion has its own set of morals...

Eshkruar nga RaulPB, 14.05.2017 at 11:00

You said it yourself, DECIDE. Thus meaning there is no objective moral and it's all about pacts and general convention.

If you think that as a species we do not decide about everything, every single day of our lives, since ancient times, then you are deluded, sorry. We create arguments and reach logical conclusions every day and make decisions based on this process. Science does too, with your logic its not bad for health for humans to drink acid, since we have to decide if it is or not, therefore there is no objective sense of health.

Eshkruar nga RaulPB, 14.05.2017 at 11:00

In other words, he plans on imposing his own ideal and morals on the millions of other morals in the world. That's not objective. Again, that's just a convention, an agreement, something in which a certain amount of people can agree (can be even considered authoritarian or dictatorial). It's hard enough to convince someone of changing his morals, let alone to control them and impose them! That's basically his utopia, not too "realistic" to me.

Again that liberal line of thought. No he is not planning on imposing anything, he is not a dictator like the ones you just absolved of any responsibility without realizing, he is just a scientist and a skeptic. He is making an argument based on his research and his thoughts and is proposing not imposing. Theres a big difference.

As for the presuppositions, science is based on values that must be presupposed too, like the desire to understand the universe, a respect for evidence and logical coherence, etc. One who doesn't share these values cannot do science.

Wether you realize it or not, the majority of us "Westerners" do agree with this for the most part, at least in modern times. The problem arises, when we are talking about different cultures and ethnicities and using your moral relativism, you deny us the right to criticize them for oppressing, harassing and affecting the well being of conscious human beings.


Quoting Sam Harris

"Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.

While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't.

The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists. To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization"

Eshkruar nga RaulPB, 14.05.2017 at 11:00

PS: don't get me wrong, I'm not judging wether I personally agree with his idea. I'm just analysing what you said and our topic on objective/subjective morals. Btw, I strongly disagree with there being any possibility of linking science with morals. They are both independant as science seeks pure knowledge without any moral content in it, so he's basically talking bs to me.

Who says science cannot be used to study morality? Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena fully constrained by the laws of nature . Therefore, there must be right and wrong answers to questions of morality and values that potentially fall within the purview of science. morality must be viewed in the context of our growing scientific understanding of the mind. If there are truths to be known about the mind, there will be truths to be known about how minds flourish. Consequently, there will be truths to be known about good and evil.




Anyway you should not demean and insult a great brain like Sam Harris, stating he is talking "bullshit". Thats the classic type of arrogance the uneducated masses show, leave that for waffel and commando eagle, you are better than that.

Eshkruar nga Acquiesce, 14.05.2017 at 11:45

Eshkruar nga RaulPB, 14.05.2017 at 09:03

THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORAL

So you are a moral relativist. That's nice but this is a discussion about moral objectivism and whether it can logically exist without some kind of religious foundation. Those who don't believe in any objective morality like yourself don't really have any seat at this debate.

He is not really, he is just mistaken into believing he is. Like most liberals (conservatives do it too) they are too quick to pass judgement about violations of supposed objective morals against the West ( slavery is bad? women and gays should be treated equally and not oppressed?) when at the same time absolving other cultures and ethnic groups, because dude, morality is subjective (when it suits us/ we are tricked into thinking it suits us)

Eshkruar nga Acquiesce, 14.05.2017 at 11:45

I respect Harris as a scientist and for his candor regarding Islam, but frankly he is not much of a philosopher and little of what I've read concerning his arguments for a secular morality are convincing. As you say, his whole thesis basically relies on a kind of scientific utilitarian model, but he never gives any justification for why we should care about the well being of conscious things. Nor does he properly define and justify what "well being" entails. To say that science, the study of what is, can have something to say about what ought to be is a misunderstanding of science and morality both.

My issue with the New Atheists crowd (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett) on this topic is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. The old atheists like Nietzsche and Sartre rejected religion and also had the logical consistency to reject objective morality along with it, admitting that the two go hand in hand.

Well, i respect your opinion but i fail to see how philosophy is more relevant than science in the matter, considering that with science we can look into the very medium that allows us to have opinions, beliefs, values and morals, our brain. I believe in the marriage of the two, but nothing is absolute and Harris arguments are not a golden rule, he is just offering a new way of dealing with the question.

The thing is that since we are biologically living and conscious organism, hardwired and motivated by instincts to survive and being well, it seems logical to accept the presupposition of the well being. As i said earlier, science works on presuppositions too, evidence, logical coherence and etc. We shouldnt have to defend ourselves to people claiming that well being is a non issue and we could murder freely, same as scientists should not and are not defending themselves to people claiming extraordinary things, not accepting the presuppositions.

I believe we are on the same page, our disagreement lies on what religions part in all this, is. I d say that morals go hand with knowledge. We needed religion, because our knowledge of the world and our species was limited and dont get me wrong, i believe it helped us alot. But at this point, we surely have passed beyond that, slavery, gay rights, womens rights are proof of this. And philosophers of the past likewise, worked with what they had, a limited understanding, their work should be debated and improved and not taken as a golden rule imo.

Eshkruar nga Khal.eesi, 14.05.2017 at 12:55

Anyway you should not demean and insult a great brain like Sam Harris, stating he is talking "bullshit". Thats the classic type of arrogance the uneducated masses show, leave that for waffel and commando eagle, you are better than that.

Stop acting like you are any better than me, or commando eagle in that case (but tbh thats not that hard, xaxa).

You hate on people for being sheep, yet you attack me for having my own opinion about something and not getting influenced by some random morons like you, or just because of whatever they studied or whatever they say or believe. Stop judging other people by their religion, looks, culture, country,language, and judge them for their actions, and start with yourself, you'd be bussy with that for a while.

If in doubt launch jihad path reveals itself

Eshkruar nga Acquiesce, 13.05.2017 at 10:07

I would love to see your argument that it does has value! One that doesn't appeal to any religious language or presuppositions. All you can offer are half-baked ideas regarding social utility vis a vis evolution.

Ironic that you should bring up nihilism. Do you not understand that it's a philosophical doctrine that directly follows a rejection of natural law and Christian/Pagan worldviews? My reasoning is literally the opposite of it. Read a summary of Nietzsche's Will to Power, where he literally predicts the postmodern nihilism that characterized the 20th century.

I am alive. I wish to continue to remain that way. My life has value to me. I think it's safe to assume you feel the same way along with the vast majority of the human race. This is why "do not kill" has become law as we've become more civilised and has been adopted into the moral codes of many of the various religions the human race has created. That life has value is one of those cases of obvious objective morality. You possess an instinct for it. It is why the act of me giving you a candy bar is not indistinguishable from the act of stabbing you to death.

The reason i asked about life not having value and then mentioned nihilism is because the only way to assert that it does not is to go down the "life has no meaning" route. I also believe this is why you dodged my question with a question of your own.

I agree with khal btw. Morality is a very complicated and controversial issue but there are some cases of obvious objective morality.

Eshkruar nga Khal.eesi, 14.05.2017 at 13:28

We needed religion, because our knowledge of the world and our species was limited and dont get me wrong, i believe it helped us alot. But at this point, we surely have passed beyond that, slavery, gay rights, womens rights are proof of this. And philosophers of the past likewise, worked with what they had, a limited understanding, their work should be debated and improved and not taken as a golden rule imo.

As early as agriculture, before written history, for thousands of years, slavery was just a basic assumption of human life. Only one specifically Christian civilization and culture did a complete about-face and put an end to that institution, not just in Europe but more or less around the world. In fact it was by and large the work of one man, and evangelical Christian, that led to the abolition of slavery in the British Empire and therefore much of the planet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

The same can be said of the foundations for human rights, gay women or otherwise. Read Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence: "First, that we have granted to God, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired." And "All men created equal endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights". These are not mistakes in language. The historical fact is that the concept of human rights is wound up in religion and God.

I believe that you, Harris, and most contemporary Westerners are basically good people who want the results of Christian ethics without the hassle of considering the source of those ethics. To steal from C.S Lewis you "remove the organ but demand the function". But by any reasonable account the West is beginning to use up it's Christian cultural capital and I believe we will see within a few generations a nihilism and callous disregard for these "obvious morals" you enjoy.

Eshkruar nga Permamuted, 14.05.2017 at 20:25

I am alive. I wish to continue to remain that way. My life has value to me. I think it's safe to assume you feel the same way along with the vast majority of the human race. This is why "do not kill" has become law as we've become more civilised and has been adopted into the moral codes of many of the various religions the human race has created. That life has value is one of those cases of obvious objective morality. You possess an instinct for it. It is why the act of me giving you a candy bar is not indistinguishable from the act of stabbing you to death.

Tell that to the thousands of Romans that cheered and drank wine while watching humans be literally butchered before their eyes. Surely they possessed an instinct that would tell them "hey maybe this isn't such a cool thing to do"? I mean since it's just so obvious.

PS: Can you guess after which event support for the Colosseum started to wane? It was almost immediately following Constantine declaring Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire.

Like that something in India would be impossible. Religion teaches you the way to live life but as you all know Good and Evil always present everywhere.
"Dont fight in the name of religion" that's osm but some idiots do that.

Thinking morals are subjective isn't the same as thinking it is fine, that if someone kills another as long as they think it's morally right. The whole idea of 'moral relativism' is a bizarre caricature only believed in by a very small minority of idiots.