| Slimebeast said: Green: your dodging a little. I asked you for an argument. How would you argue that it's wrong. You only say "it's instinctively wrong". Okay... And you wouldn't even try to argue with the aliens. Despite them being highly intelligent and compassionate beings? Blue: I told u, u make it complicated by bringing the Bible into this. You cited texts from the Old Testament. They're rules that applies to Jews at that time in that context, not Christians. You ever wondered why you never hear a Christian argue that we should stone blasphemers or take slaves? Orange: In that scenario (if God removed morals) yes I would be left with "atheist morals". But where did I say that atheist morals are bad? Actually a big part of my whole argument is that most human beings, including atheists, have an intrinsic "divine spark" or "instinct" if you will, that is so strong about what is right and wrong, what is evil and good, a strong feeling or knowledge that goes beyond our biological programming. You see, in many hypothetical discussions humans have the ability to step out from the ego, to distance themselves from their instincts and look upon matters from a more objective stance, but this is seldom the case for morals. Nearly every atheist will in fact, just like you,argue that it's wrong to torment the baby no matter if it was in pre-historic times, today or by an alien on an alien planet and yet in these discussions he will drop comments like we already seen in this thread "it's all relative" - that is, the atheist will attribute himself to absolute morals (damn, I dont think attribute is the proper word) and contradicts himself without knowing it. So about the question whether your atheist morals are lesser than mine. Perhaps no since I believe they have the same source, which is some kind of universal and divine knowledge and conviction about what is right and wrong. But your arguments and basis for your morals are definately weaker. |
I agree with both of you that you don't need god or religion for your moral compass, but I think Slimebeast, that you're underestimating the Biological aspect of morals. There is a biologically attributable reason for sociopaths and other social personality disorders that causes them to feel no empathy towards others. These people don't have the same standard of natural morals that we do. Biologically, we each have the ability to feel empathy and relate to other people of our species, and to a lesser extent with animals (hence pets).
In fact, pets are a good source of evidence for this, as we've bred the more social and docile animals and kept them as pets. These animals, even though many of them are carnivores by nature, have become far less "wild" and more social. Breeding programs of wild cats has shown that progressive breeding of these more sociable traits ensures that the ancestors will effectively be sociable and domesticated.
The reason morals have changed is two-fold. One is a social aspect and the whole "history is written by the victors", the other biological and our ability to feel empathy to those around us. However, these are both closely related. The plasticity of the brain means we can effectively cut off empathy for certain groups by de-humanising them and effectively become blaze' about doing horrific acts, hence why we have wars, and why certain cultures have determined the morals of the time.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with the alien thing. It sounds similar to the situation between Europe and the native Americans where the Europeans believed themselves superior due to there technology. They believed they were morally correct and superior because they had technology and god on there side and the natives were beneath them. Basically they were arrogant. Eventually this perspective changed. I think a similar scenario could play out if aliens landed and had the same morally superior attitude.
