crap, i just spent an hour writing a response and when i went to post it, something happened and I lost it.
*sigh* here goes again
Look at this thread Houde... Look what you did.
This is why we can't have nice things.
There's nothing wrong with a friendly debate. I'm not angry or upset, and I love talking about this stuff!
Nice, rebuttal. You should have been on Bill Maher's Religulous.
Thanks!
I haven't seen the whole movie, but the little bit that I have makes me pretty angry. Not at Bill Maher, at the people he interviews. They deserve to be made fun of.
It makes us angry because there's a shared instinct of preservation. Because the sense of protecting our family is genetically ingrained in our DNA, because our society and (more importantly and more hopefully) our family taught us these values. And just as importantly, moralistic ideas are naturally extensions of logical and philosophical thought. Even (most of) the most misanthropic philosophers can recognize the value of a system of morals. There's no reason a god even needs to enter the equation.
My presumption would be that, again, it arises from logic. Human beings of all stripes naturally recognize that they can accomplish more organized into groups, and from there, the preservation of society hinges on the premise that said society can protect its citizens from threats to self, family, and property. The reason different cultures have different moralities arises from the fact that there are different threats that require different discrepancies within their individual rules of law.
Oh, come on! That's a little much, isn't it? Maybe it comes from being human. Or maybe it's just a symptom of being. We aren't the only social animals with inherent rules of law.
We seem to be talking about morality from different angles. I'll address what I understand to be morality as you're describing it, (because you have some valid points) and then discus the kind of morality I was talking about in my other post.
If I understand you correctly, when you say morality, you're talking about it in the sense of "I don't want anyone to hurt me or my family or my property, so I'll treat others the same way." And then you link that with laws. And I agree, that is very logical and based very much in a desire for self-preservation - for the most part.
Laws, in theory, are limitations placed on a society, by that society, for the protection of themselves. The idea being that people realize that it's to their collective advantage to limit their individual freedoms (which you said in different words). Basically, laws are put in place to enforce morality/justice. But the question then is, if morality comes from an extension of human logic and a collective sense of self-preservation, why does it need to be enforced? Why can't we trust each other to behave morally? I believe the answer to that question is that 'golden rule' morality is only logical as long as all other things remain equal. As soon as one person or group of people gain an advantage over the others, the "shared instinct of preservation" you mentioned falls apart. Human history has shown us that our sense of self-preservation pushes us to get ahead if we have the power to do it. So the moment a person or group of people feel they can get away with it, they are going to step on everyone else so they can satisfy themselves. It's only logical. So the idea that morality is derived from human logic and a shared instinct of self-preservation breaks down. Logic and self-preservation don't produce morality, the best they can do is use it as a compromise.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that morality often comes into conflict with self-preservation and even logic. This is what I was referring to in my last post. Let me give one example to illustrate my point. There are hundreds of charities and organizations in the world that focus on helping starving people in third world countries. This is a good thing, no doubt. But why do they care? It has nothing to do with self preservation. If you and your family are safe and provided for, why does it matter if someone you don't know dies in Africa? As long as you stay safe in North America (or Europe, etc) that will most likely never happen to you. So why do we care? And why would we give our resources to help? We need those to take care of ourselves and our families. And why would anyone go to those countries and help the people when they could be much more safe and comfortable if they stayed home and looked after themselves? These seem like ridiculous questions, but I'm asking them to demonstrate that morality isn't about self-preservation or logic. In fact, self-preservation and logic are often the very things that prevent us from caring enough to do anything to help. But when we
are faced with the realities of poverty and starvation, we know, deep down, that this isn't the way the world should be.
So then where does morality come from? You said that "Maybe it comes from being human. Or maybe it's just a symptom of being." I guess I don't understand that line of reasoning. As I look at human history and even my own life, I see a constant struggle to please self regardless of what is right. I'm not saying all people are vile and cruel - there are a lot of good, decent people in this world, people who manage to discipline themselves and tame their desire to please self. But that's because they were trained well as a child and have worked at it. If you have to work so hard to act moral, then how can morality just come from being human?
Uh, yeah. I don't like the idea of not being my own master. I don't think that's self-absorbed or vain at all. I don't considered myself to be self-centered, or greedy, or anything else. I don't feel like I need a crutch to tell me to do the right thing. I do the right thing because I have empathy. And empathy comes from art and understanding and experience. There needn't be a god involved at all. A god just cheapens the beauty of the human experience, the fact that I can love and sympathize and cut to the heart of emotion because I'm human, not because there's some dude up in the clouds who's better than me, or because I'm afraid of going to Hell when I die.
Because we are naturally vile animals, and we need the intervention of someone "greater" to insure that we aren't exterminated.
Sorry, dude... but.... Yuck.
I don't like the idea that I'm not my own master either. But one thing I realize more and more as I go through life is that I'm not the master of my life regardless of whether or not there is a God. Stuff happens every day that I have no control over, so to claim that I'm the master of my own life, even if there isn't a God just seems to be foolish. I can't even always control myself. The things that I don't want to do, I seem to keep doing them; the things that I want to do, I don't always do them. And I'm sure that you aren't self-centred or greedy, etc. At least not any more than I am or anyone else is. But I'll speak for myself and say that I'm definitely more self-centred and greedy than I want to be. That's the human condition.
I don't need a crutch to tell me to do the right thing, but I do need some serious help to get my life straight because even at my best I'm pretty pathetic. And that's the point: not toeing the line because I'm afraid of hell, but recognizing that the world (as beautiful and amazing as it is) is messed up, and it's our fault. Every day my instinct for self-preservation causes me to step on and hurt others, even when I don't mean to. Even people who devote their whole lives to doing good in the world have times when they let self determine their actions or words and hurt others as a result. Multiply that by billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years of known human history and you can see why the world is messed up. And it is messed up, that was the point of this thread from the beginning.
So yeah, not only do we need someone greater to insure we don't exterminate ourselves, but we need someone greater to help us get our lives straight every day.
Sorry, guy.
