Let’s end these morality threads once and for all.
Morality concerns what we should and should not do. What we should and should not do is dependent on what benefits us. If you disagree, then you would have to assume that all actions are equally preferable, which is absurd and obviously not practiced by anyone who denies morality. Therefore, morality is ultimately derived from self-benefit and isobjective, since there exists a path of action that will lead to the moral agent’s greatest benefit compared to the other paths. Again, if you deny this, then you must give an account as to why you are still alive and relatively normal, for if all actions were equally preferable, then you would likely not live a healthy life, and the odds of your committing a crime or participating in deathly stunts are just as likely as eating, or taking a shower, or browsing the Internet.
So morality is objective. However, that does not necessarily mean that a moral agent perfectly understands what is moral in any given situation. Just because there is objective truth, that doesn’t mean that a human should be omniscient and fully grasp objective truth. Rather, humans partially grasp the truth, and likewise for morality. For example, we intuitively understand that killing random people is morally wrong, since this will likely lead to our suffering. But to claim that some scenarios have no morally correct options is the same as saying all options are equally beneficial in the long run. Again, just because you don’t know the objectively moral choice, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
With that said, can atheists have morals? Of course, in the sense that atheists can “have truths.” In other words, atheists have a basic grasp of morality, or how they should act in order to benefit themselves. Their moral system excludes the afterlife, and so their morals are based on this world, on naturalism. Morality is still objective for them. The difference is that they reject fixed or universal moral laws, and this is justified, if naturalism is true. Because though lying may be morally wrong in some situations, it is not necessarily wrong in all situations. But it would be absurd to claim that lying is never morally wrong, or that even murder is never morally wrong, for this would be the same as denying that these actions can be bad for you. Theistic morality, on the other hand, is universal, consistent, and known by humans. Killing is always wrong because God says so, and any material benefits of overstepping these moral laws are outweighed by the benefits in the afterlife. It does require faith to believe these morals are truly descriptive of what will benefit us, but all moral systems are faith-based unless you have perfect knowledge.
To those who agree that morality is objective, but disagree that it is based on self-benefit, what, then, is the purpose of being moral? If it were possible that the most moral action is less beneficial than some other action in the long run, then why choose the “moral” action instead? >”because it’s the right thing to do” Why is the right thing, and why should one do the right thing?
Jeremiah Nelson
Attemted to read your shit but gave up. My phone is gonna run out of battery soon
Then explain the morality of subterranean diphallic worms who joust with acidic sperm
Nathan Williams
your argument is self defeating, if morality is based on self benefit then it cannot be objective because what benefits the individual is different for each one of them. >just because you don’t know the objectively moral choice, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. this is a strong assertion, and much like the skepticism present on your second post ill ask: what is this objective moral choice? and how can you know it exists? how can you, a frail, fragile human being who just barely got out of the womb, know what is objectively moral for everyone especially considering the vast variability of circumstances that circles the human life? what makes YOU an authority?
Landon Thomas
I read this in Johan's voice.
Dylan Flores
>if morality is based on self benefit then it cannot be objective because what benefits the individual is different for each one of them. It’s objective, but not necessarily universal. Just because I imagine that killing someone is good for me doesn’t mean it is. There are objective morals for each and every person, and some morals are common to all, especially under theism. >how can you, a frail, fragile human being who just barely got out of the womb, know what is objectively moral for everyone I never claimed to know what is objectively moral for everyone, only that there exists an objectively moral action in any given scenario. Otherwise, all actions are equally moral and it makes no difference to the moral agent what he chooses, which I believe is absurd and is demonstrable proven false every day.
if its not universal then its not objective you goombus
Christopher Hernandez
It’s objective in the sense that it’s independent of human opinion or knowledge. It is dependent on the constitution of the subject, sure, because the same stimulus may have varying effects of benefit across various agents, but it’s still the case that for each agent, there exists a most moral path that mental gymnastics cannot change. If I think something is moral, that doesn’t mean it is.
Noah Rivera
> "If I think something is moral, that doesn’t mean it is." Clearly
Carson Powell
>It’s objective in the sense that it’s independent of human opinion or knowledge.
do you seriously think people dont take their personal feelings and opinions into account when making a decision?
Aaron Butler
> morality exists > different people have different objective moral things to do
IBE would like a word with you.
Kevin Miller
>do you seriously think people dont take their personal feelings and opinions into account when making a decision? Of course, but they may not act in their actual best interests. Anyone who has experienced regret knows this. If we could all see how the future unfolded with every given decision, and we could freely choose the most desirable outcome, then we would essentially be perfect moral agents.
Mason Moore
>Killing is always wrong because God says so, and any material benefits of overstepping these moral laws are outweighed by the benefits in the afterlife.
Have you read any holy book at all?
Eli Reed
Of morality is dependent on self-benefit, then how could everyone have the same morals? Someone with health problems or allergies shouldn’t eat certain foods, yet someone else might should eat those same foods. There are countless other examples. When I say morality is objective, I do not mean it is universal, or constant, only that there exists a perfect moral choice in any situation dependent on the agent. It’s objective in the sense that it’s moral regardless of what you believe is moral.
Ayden Fisher
>If we could all see how the future unfolded with every given decision, and we could freely choose the most desirable outcome, then we would essentially be perfect moral agents.
not true because the most desirable outcome for some is to abuse, steal, kill and etc
Wyatt Hall
How am I supposed to respond to this?
Robert Perez
You’re assuming that for some people, those actions would lead to maximum benefit in the long run. But if that’s true, then why shouldn’t they commit those acts?
Samuel Young
If I live in occupied poland and there is a jew family next door, should i steal their gold and report them to the ss? this is to my benefit.
What if i take joy in attacking people, assume the joy outweighs punishment, should I? It is to my benefit.
what you have is not morality in anysense, any real morality worth discussing is good to pursue regardless of gain, the idea that fun for me = good is crazy first year phil student cringe.
In taking these actions it leads to bad for other people, is that to be taken into account when assessing my actions or no?
Connor Ortiz
sub or dub
Adam Harris
You’re assuming that you can perfectly know the most beneficial path of action, which isn’t true. Obviously just because I see some temporary gain from an action doesn’t mean it will outweigh the gains from other actions in the end. The whole point of morality as humans use it is to guide us in the general direction of self-benefit. If that isn’t morality, then what is?
Nicholas Martinez
>It does require faith to believe these morals are truly descriptive of what will benefit us, but all moral systems are faith-based unless you have perfect knowledge.
Connor Richardson
you are taking too much faith on human reasoning. most people dont think in the long run, specially in this contemporary hedonistic world. humans are flawed. asking for anyone to be a perfect moral agent is like asking for a monkey to stop climbing trees. your whole argument is useless anyway because what is the point of "objective" moral truth if no one can really know what it is? do you think its like that adam sandler movie where he can stop time and ponder what is the best decision to make? its utopic, your thesis does not help anyone in any way. unless you never wanted to be practical and just wanted to demonstrate the reasoning behind your atheist morality, if thats the case then congrats.
Carter Hill
>Theistic morality, on the other hand, is universal, consistent, and known by humans. Killing is always wrong because God says so, only for retarded jew worshipers (Christians). not every theist is brainwashed by people who think god is a jew
Henry Gray
I’m simply trying to clarify everyone’s thinking about morality. As it is, the word is often used mindlessly, with no one really understanding what they mean by it. What can be more true than that we should do what ultimately benefits us the most? Even if this were not practical, is it not true? And I am no atheist. I don’t believe such a lifestyle is beneficial. I’m a Christian and I subscribe to its moral laws.
1.Your denying the empirical claim people that could get long term benefit (measured in utility )like that do exist, this is very silly. Some do bad things and re live them in their minds for fun. 2. The point of morality is to learn how we ought to act, if there is no objective morality that us ok, but MostLongTermFun=/= Moral
Jaxon White
I hardly understand what you’re saying. I agree that morality is concerned with how we ought to act, but how ought we act, if not for self-benefit? I don’t like how you equate “long-term benefit” with “fun”
Austin Morris
>The whole point of morality as humans use it is to guide us in the general direction of self-benefit. If that isn’t morality, then what is? That's a very Christian attitude towards morality. The idea of the self, the individual, came along with Christianity and Paul's and Augustine's teachings that Christ is within every person, which broke up the old Greco Roman worldview that the individual unit of the community, or the polis, was the inherited family based on assumed (natural) inequality headed by the paterfamilias i.e. there was no idea of the self. The ideal Christian community was the kingdom of God which any individual could become a part of, and the Christians elected their community leaders in the form of bishops and presbyters. You are trying to reach morality through reason but your definition of morality is Christian through and through.
Blake Sanders
I’m Christian
Charles Foster
Then morality should be taken on faith for you, not reason.
Jackson Perez
It does require faith to believe these morals are truly descriptive of what will benefit us, but all moral systems are faith-based unless you have perfect knowledge.
Nolan Allen
forgot the > see
Connor White
Morality =//= Preferability.
Jose Davis
Not an argument
Lucas Wilson
Sure it is. What is moraly preferable isn't automaticaly sensoricaly preferable.
Carter Foster
It seems as if you didn’t comprehend what I’ve posted, or at least you didn’t read all of it
Christopher Adams
I'll give you another try, can you establidh a necessary logical conmection, between self benefit and the ordinary definition of morality?
Ian Taylor
>What we should and should not do is dependent on what benefits us. If you disagree, then you would have to assume that all actions are equally preferable, which is absurd and obviously not practiced by anyone who denies morality. Therefore, morality is ultimately derived from self-benefit and isobjective The fact that we see charity and sacrificing yourself for others as moral action contradicts this. You could of course argue that this is simply "deferred self-benefit", as the reward comes after you die, but in that case atheists are not capable of traditional morality, since their cost-benefit arithmetic is entirely confined to the present life
Lucas Butler
You’re implying that charity and sacrifice have no self-benefit, which is wrong, otherwise people wouldn’t do it. If all you get out of giving to someone is the mere joy of doing it, then there is your benefit. Also, by giving to others, your reputation can increase, and people may like you more. Perhaps others will give to you in return. We sacrifice ourselves for others for biological reasons. Our genes are also in others. By saving them, we help preserve our own genes and the species. For the same reasons, we value sex.
Caleb Garcia
What is the ordinary definition of morality? How is it not logical that we should do, or at least try to do, what ultimately benefits us?
Luis Jenkins
There, thanks for admitting people are sacrificing resources to get good feelings in their brains. Now man up and abandon your retarded "I will apply game theory to every single human behaviour using the false assumption that we're totally rational beings"
Eli Mitchell
People have that “good feeling” because they expect a future benefit. It’s the opposite scenario of doing something wrong and feeling guilt or fear. You feel bad because you know there is a future punishment awaiting you. Those feelings exist as incentives to make you avoid the bad and seek the good.
Sebastian Powell
"Future benefit" People literally sacrifice their lives, there is no individual future benefit in that scenario, dummy. Fuck your libertardian nonsense
Henry Torres
Animals do the same thing. It’s basic survival technique. We will all die, but our genes will persist, especially in others. Tell me why no one is concerned with sacrificing themselves for worthless, inanimate objects? Tell me the reason for sacrifice if not for some sort of self-benefit.
Luis Rodriguez
Not him, but we “ssacrifice" utility of objects to affirm the value of the “spirit”. We showcase our higher-selves by disowning being a slave to the body (bodily needs). As human beings we do not want to be objects that are enslaved to the process of survival. Instead, we want to affirm our own “divinity” or “spirituality” by finding ways to exceed the objective, bottom-line effort of survival
Nolan Kelly
So now it's not rationality, it's instinct? lol. Alright, we're all just deterministic robots and morality is a function of that, sure mate
Carson Price
You’re stretching so hard. Obviously in some cases sacrifice IS an instinct. No thought is needed. But it can still be rational. Sacrifice is an appealing notions, and it can appeal to both instinct and reason. So can eating. You cannot explain why anyone would want to sacrifice if not for some sort of self-benefit. You also didn’t answer my question of why people don’t sacrifice themselves for worthless, inanimate objects.
William Lee
>If you disagree, then you would have to assume that all actions are equally preferable why? justify that
Colton Rogers
Either some actions are more beneficial, or all actions are equally beneficial. If all actions are equally beneficial, then there is no way to distinguish which action you should take
Jonathan Ramirez
>What is the ordinary definition of morality? I'll help you out: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality >How is it not logical that we should do, or at least try to do, what ultimately benefits us? I don't want to be impolite, but as you make the claim, it means that you have the burden of proof.
Colton Lee
Compassion, mate, empathy and connection to other intelligent life. Why have complicated game theory involving ultra-rational cost-benefit analyses and gene-level instincts when one basic emotion will suffice? Killer whales, smart social apex predators, eat all sorts of shit, yet have basically never attacked humans in the wild. Which is the Occams razor choice, that they're so big brained that they steer clear of these helpless swimming monkeys because they fear retribution, or because they recognize a fellow intelligent being when they see it? The other apex predators like tigers, bears etc. don't make that first game theory calculation by the way
Dylan Gomez
>or because they recognize a fellow intelligent being when they see it How is this a final reason?
Joshua Wright
We have compassion and empathy because they tend to self-growth and benefit. Or do you honestly think that the compassionless person will be just as happy in his life? Do you think that if you stopped caring for others, you would be just as fine?
David Myers
The question of morality is the question of is there anything more to morals than enlightened egoism?
I.E. Is there a reason not to harm others, if it will not harm you psychologically or physically, and it will clearly benefit you? Or to put it another way, if you had to choose between saving your own child and saving the children of three people you don't know and never will meet, is there any reason not to instinctively save your own child?
