Green_Lantern
Staff member
First video: Good without Gods
Rational Morality
- Thread starter Green_Lantern
- Start date
- Status
That's both interesting and insightful.
I love how so many people seem to make the argument that without God you wouldn't be moral because there would be no one to punish you... hint, you're not being moral if you're only doing it because you're afraid of hell dumb-ass.
But that video has it wrong, it's not science, but logic... (they might intertwine, but the difference is worth pointing out).
But that video has it wrong, it's not science, but logic... (they might intertwine, but the difference is worth pointing out).
Green_Lantern
Staff member
This is so true. I actually think that my sister... I generally feel that she has become less compassionate and much more arrogant now that she is more religious.
As far I can see, it is lesser mistake than mistaking morality for religion.
Actually I was under the impression that the religious motive for being moral was to be more like God/Jesus, using him as an example and striving to be more like that example, using God as a baseline for one's own actions (whether or not that actually occurs is another matter). Fear of hell might a motive, but at least for protestants, where it's taught that good works mean jack shit as far as salvation goes it might be unfair to say that fear is the motivation for doing good or even that the religious belief that good and evil is defined by the ability to be punished.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
The worst things about religion is usually tied together exactly with the reward-or-punishment aspect of it.
I preface this by stating I am an atheist, and I have a huge interest in these kinds of morality debates.
That video fails to add anything new to the conversation, and has the annoying habit of setting up weak arguments, and destroying them. "Society 1 villifies children as witches..." "Society x refuses to educate women, who support this position themselves..." I mean, that's pretty weak, but it seems good because it's presented so concisely and clearly: and to be fair, the presentation and points are taught, clear and presented well.
But it makes several assumptions that weaken it, and it's set-up of arguments is one of my least favourite methods of arguing a point. Using examples (even invented ones) is of course useful for illustrative purposes, but this fellow seems to be arguing as to why certain societal set-ups are immoral, when few of those exist. The closest one to existence would of course be the society which refuses to educate women, and in which the women support this resolution, which we see to varying extents in some Islamic cultures. One of the biggest problems this poses is the majority of people, Christian, religious at all, or atheistic, are going to reject the scenarios as immoral, but this doesn't strengthen his argument like he thinks it does.
It also assumes that he knows the 'correct' approach to morality, which is foolish and arrogant. He alleges homosexuality is not a moral question and is falsely framed as such because it causes no harm. I would agree with him, but this doesn't actually remove homosexuality from the arena of morality completely, because we do have people who operate under other moral frameworks. He asserts that you can't accept every other cultural framework (true, although again, his set-up argument is characteristically easy for him to tear down), but the reality is we have to understand them if we ever hope to change them. So we also have to accept that some people see homosexuality as a moral issue. He argues for pursuits through science and logic, which is well and good, but they run up against a wall when people believe you can cause damage to a soul, which science and logic can't help.
Finally the argument about godlessness is less about the basis for morality: we understand that society functions on certain moral rules, but more about the purpose of moral behaviour. If I see someone lose their wallet, should I call after them to return it? Or just take the money? I gain by taking the money, and lose nothing. There's no incentive to be good, so the question becomes, why be good, and even more esoterically, if there is no arbiter of justice, is there good or evil at all.
It's not that I disagree with the assertions the video makes, but I do feel he misses several points, makes some obvious weaknesses, and neatly avoids the crucial question of why or if one ought to be moral in a Godless universe, which can be an infinitely fascinating question, by cleanly assuming that there is a morality which ought to be obeyed.
(As an aside, Christian morality isn't about a cosmic reward/punishment system, either. The Bible explicitly states that if you are only good to avoid hell, or to get into heaven, you are not being good: the goal is to love God so fully that you obey him out of love, and are therefore good.)
That video fails to add anything new to the conversation, and has the annoying habit of setting up weak arguments, and destroying them. "Society 1 villifies children as witches..." "Society x refuses to educate women, who support this position themselves..." I mean, that's pretty weak, but it seems good because it's presented so concisely and clearly: and to be fair, the presentation and points are taught, clear and presented well.
But it makes several assumptions that weaken it, and it's set-up of arguments is one of my least favourite methods of arguing a point. Using examples (even invented ones) is of course useful for illustrative purposes, but this fellow seems to be arguing as to why certain societal set-ups are immoral, when few of those exist. The closest one to existence would of course be the society which refuses to educate women, and in which the women support this resolution, which we see to varying extents in some Islamic cultures. One of the biggest problems this poses is the majority of people, Christian, religious at all, or atheistic, are going to reject the scenarios as immoral, but this doesn't strengthen his argument like he thinks it does.
It also assumes that he knows the 'correct' approach to morality, which is foolish and arrogant. He alleges homosexuality is not a moral question and is falsely framed as such because it causes no harm. I would agree with him, but this doesn't actually remove homosexuality from the arena of morality completely, because we do have people who operate under other moral frameworks. He asserts that you can't accept every other cultural framework (true, although again, his set-up argument is characteristically easy for him to tear down), but the reality is we have to understand them if we ever hope to change them. So we also have to accept that some people see homosexuality as a moral issue. He argues for pursuits through science and logic, which is well and good, but they run up against a wall when people believe you can cause damage to a soul, which science and logic can't help.
Finally the argument about godlessness is less about the basis for morality: we understand that society functions on certain moral rules, but more about the purpose of moral behaviour. If I see someone lose their wallet, should I call after them to return it? Or just take the money? I gain by taking the money, and lose nothing. There's no incentive to be good, so the question becomes, why be good, and even more esoterically, if there is no arbiter of justice, is there good or evil at all.
It's not that I disagree with the assertions the video makes, but I do feel he misses several points, makes some obvious weaknesses, and neatly avoids the crucial question of why or if one ought to be moral in a Godless universe, which can be an infinitely fascinating question, by cleanly assuming that there is a morality which ought to be obeyed.
(As an aside, Christian morality isn't about a cosmic reward/punishment system, either. The Bible explicitly states that if you are only good to avoid hell, or to get into heaven, you are not being good: the goal is to love God so fully that you obey him out of love, and are therefore good.)
Green_Lantern
Staff member
^Maybe he will cover some of those issues in the next videos?
That's a likelihood. This seemed more like an overview than anything.
I'm willing to keep watching, like I said, he presents things well, and it's a topic that interests me. I just found a lot to whine about, I suppose. But I'm good at that.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
I generally got the impression that his videos are somehow... well, educational, but in a more broader aspect, like this could be showed to a group of children and they would understand.
Official dogma and what people think about it are different way too much of the time...
But the first time i remember seeing the argument that without God you'd have no reason not to be bad was on an MTV reality show, a long time ago, when some lady made that argument to the guy her daughter was prospectively dating and it made my brain hurt...
The way it works logically is that God makes the existence of a true right and wrong dichotomy objective... while without it it's just subjective, and in the end it's only what you can get away with and what you can't.
And i'm not sure, but i think the protestants pretty much assume that having true faith would make you act better, and regret every sin you commit etc., they just don't believe any man can be without sin no matter how hard they try, and only by being faithful can they get into heaven anyway.
I believe the term for good works alone in the bible is "menstruation rags" or thereabouts.
Personally, I don't care how someone justifies it be it trying to emulate the divine or improving one's community, striving to be better is good enough for me.
Remember kids, even in D&D a True Neutral prefers good aligned neighbors over evil aligned....or so they say...
Personally, I don't care how someone justifies it be it trying to emulate the divine or improving one's community, striving to be better is good enough for me.
Remember kids, even in D&D a True Neutral prefers good aligned neighbors over evil aligned....or so they say...
P
pgurney
That was certainly an interesting video. Gives one something to think about.
M
makare
I suppose they are the same principles a person who is spiritual but not religious lives by. Also like said above he doesn't really address the why and actually just becomes another mechanism advocating a certain morality not entirely unlike a religious doctrinal work.
Rather than "rational" morality, it is better described as Humanist morality, specifically secular humanism: "a secular philosophy that espouses human reason, ethics, and justice, and the search for human fulfillment. It specifically rejects religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making."
Note that the word rational merely means able to reason with - it doesn't discount being able to reason with a religious person - you both have to agree on the same basic framework or perspective. In other words, a Humanist can be considered irrational within a religious framework, in the same way that some Humanists consider religious people as irrational within their humanist framework.
However, I believe they are trying to abuse the word "rational" so that they can call anyone who espouses religious or supernatural beliefs as "irrational" in the next or later videos.
They should be using the word Humanistic, rather than rational - it's just a bit of propaganda, sadly.
They make two leaps, though, that they don't back up:
First that we can all agree on a common definition of "harm"
Second that a Humanist framework is the best framework on which to define our common or shared morality.
As long as you accept their framework and definition of harm, then you will agree with everything else they say - it's all straightforward and logical. But you still have to make those leaps, and it's quite obvious they are glossing over these assumptions.
Some people can be good of their own accord. Some need law to dissuade them from doing wrong. Some need religion.
It's not a matter of which is correct or not, because society at large is comprised of many different people. There are people for whom the only thing stopping them from going on a killing spree is belief in divine punishment, and I sure fucking hope those people keep believing in it. It's like laws in the sense that there are naive people who think they can have a state of anarchy peacefully without evil laws and taxes and such. Different people need different restrictions.
It's not a matter of which is correct or not, because society at large is comprised of many different people. There are people for whom the only thing stopping them from going on a killing spree is belief in divine punishment, and I sure fucking hope those people keep believing in it. It's like laws in the sense that there are naive people who think they can have a state of anarchy peacefully without evil laws and taxes and such. Different people need different restrictions.
That must be nice.
Wow, where do you start?
First, I like how he basically skips over the idea that power does NOT deem what is moral and what isn't. Throughout history, it could be argued that those with the backing of power have actually set up almost everything we commonly see as moral or not. Very mercenary, but hardly to be skipped over.
Second, he takes the "harm principal" as his base. Great, though hardly unassailable. Not to mention the lack of the idea of just what is "better" or not? Some say living as close to nature as you can survive at is better than a more urban lifestyle. Who's right? Why? Why is one better at all?
Definition of "needless harm"? Where do you want to go with that? Not to mention his nice drop-in of harming "other lifeforms which ... experience suffering." You know I'm suffering from a distinct lack of ... oh I dunno.. spam (the food) right now. Society is immoral for not easing my suffering. Now those last two sentences are easy to assault, but still, it's just... yikes.
You know, I can just reduce a lot of his problems with his arguments to whenever he says "we know that..." It's basically an "you can't argue with me" way of starting a line of thinking. Even when I agree with his initial premise, that itself is often a moral judgment, and needs to be proven by itself before moving on. He even lists them out later claiming they aren't arbitrary, and then goes back to the harm/suffering line (even when a few have no link).
I like how he says that science can determine what's true and false, and from an observational perspective, I agree, but it can never determine what's better. It can say more, less, greater, etc, but better? Or worse? It never can do that.
But still, Harm. That's it. And long-term thinking. Not much new there other than the necessity to coexist, which is interesting, but again, unjustified, even if I agree.
First, I like how he basically skips over the idea that power does NOT deem what is moral and what isn't. Throughout history, it could be argued that those with the backing of power have actually set up almost everything we commonly see as moral or not. Very mercenary, but hardly to be skipped over.
Second, he takes the "harm principal" as his base. Great, though hardly unassailable. Not to mention the lack of the idea of just what is "better" or not? Some say living as close to nature as you can survive at is better than a more urban lifestyle. Who's right? Why? Why is one better at all?
Definition of "needless harm"? Where do you want to go with that? Not to mention his nice drop-in of harming "other lifeforms which ... experience suffering." You know I'm suffering from a distinct lack of ... oh I dunno.. spam (the food) right now. Society is immoral for not easing my suffering. Now those last two sentences are easy to assault, but still, it's just... yikes.
You know, I can just reduce a lot of his problems with his arguments to whenever he says "we know that..." It's basically an "you can't argue with me" way of starting a line of thinking. Even when I agree with his initial premise, that itself is often a moral judgment, and needs to be proven by itself before moving on. He even lists them out later claiming they aren't arbitrary, and then goes back to the harm/suffering line (even when a few have no link).
I like how he says that science can determine what's true and false, and from an observational perspective, I agree, but it can never determine what's better. It can say more, less, greater, etc, but better? Or worse? It never can do that.
But still, Harm. That's it. And long-term thinking. Not much new there other than the necessity to coexist, which is interesting, but again, unjustified, even if I agree.
Some people don't care about religious morality, but they do care about law. I'm sure you're aware of this.
And yet it's beyond your comprehension that the reverse is true for others.
But they don't care about the law, but about the punishment... that's why lawful stupid never comes up in real life...
And i have yet to see someone that cares about religious morality and isn't either a hypocrite, and thus would do it anyway if no one find out (and that's just peer pressure in the end), or a saint, and thus wouldn't go on a killing spree anyway.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
I not sure if science can *never* determine what is better, or not. At any rate, it has a better (no pun intended) chance of determine anything than "let do what the nearly two thousand year old book says" alternative.
Better for who?! That's the problem...
- Status