/atheism/ - Atheism

>>5676
This is true but it applies to everyone, including Christians.

>>5676
Honestly I don't see whats wrong with seeing morality as purely as a mechanism for social stability. Its more genie than just it being handed down by God at least. At least we determined thats how we want to behave to each other instead of it being imposed on us by a "higher power"

>>5721
Because he is likely a theist who doesn't understand how someone who isn't in perpetual fear of a god could possibly be a good person. As it seems, he would love to go out and rape and murder, but he's afraid of it. This is the type of person who says that if there were no cops, that they would wreck as much shit as they could.

I guess this is why atheists lean toward Libertarianism and why theists lean toward Anarchism and like to call it Libertarianism.

What if I'm moral for the sake of pragmatic mutual benefit?

I share a house with four other guys. I could so easily go to the fridge and eat their food. But if I did so, that would cause hostility and distrust between us. They might start locking their food away, or eating mine in turn. Since I would like to keep my food in a convenient place without fear of it being taken, I'll just go ahead and respect theirs. I'll keep to mine, they'll keep to theirs, everyone is happy.

I don't need to do this because it's the moral thing, I do it because it's the practical thing.

>>5856

missing the full context of Aristitle which was that his philosophy was a strictly hirearchical society in which people unquestioningly obey their rules (ie. the ruled elements are naturally inclined to be ruled and must submit to the rulers, wives must submit to husbands, slaves must submit unquestioningly to their masters, subjects must submit unquestioningly to their kings.

Alot of this stuff is just pulling philosophers out of context and depriving their work of it's true meaning. There is no widely accepted or workable ethical system based on logic or philosophical systems. If there were things like corporate and government ethics and laws would be based on that system.

>>5856

that's not the practical thing, the practical thing is to steal everyone elses food and blame it on the guy you like the least.

this is the issue of ethics, you are pretending that mutual benefit and personal benefit are always aligned, when in reality they frequently conflict.

>>5857
While that maybe true, it's still better to be moral than immoral. Not everyone can see that, so that's why we have law.

>>5858
No, that isn't practical at all.

>>5875
>>5875

If being moral was the same thing as being practical we would all be saints, because common sense would dicatate that we act saintly.

the notion that we are being immoral simply because we cannot see the practical self benefit to moral behavior is ridiculous

I mean really, just the other day I was at the bank, and the guy in front of me withdrew a large some of money from the machine and walked away with the money still in the machine apparently forgetting about it.

I could have easily waited for him to leave, walked up, taken the money and walked away pretending nothing happened. Or I could have taken the money and left.

Was it impractical for the Nazis to kill the Jews to take their money.

You will pretend that in this case, and all cases like this, being moral and being practical is exactly the same thing. And I think in doing that, you are playing games.

>I could have easily waited for him to leave, walked up, taken the money and walked away pretending nothing happened. Or I could have taken the money and left.

There would be cameras and he probably would have remembered and come back for the money. The fear of pumishment also stilled you. A better test of your ethics would be if a cashier gave you too much change - would you pretend you didn't notice, or would you correct the error?
>>5935

>>5937
>A better test of your ethics would be if a cashier gave you too much change - would you pretend you didn't notice, or would you correct the error?

well of course I would give it back, not because of any phony Gods blessing, but because Im enlightened by my intelligence enough to have convinced myself its the practical thing to do

>>5978

no the trolls are the ones pretending that self interest and communal interest are perfectly aligned making ethical behavior simply a matter of common sense.

that's actually the whole fucken issue behind ethical philosophy, how do we have an ethical system when self interest and general interest so often conflict. Were that not the case, there would be no need for ethical philosophy, or law, or corporate ethics or so many of the other things we have in the world

here citations so you don't try and write me off as a troll to assume that your absurdly stupid and infatile notions are somehow genius, (because stupid people often do that)

read the abstract, about how ethical philosophy is based on the conflict between morality and self interest

http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780195305852.do

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195305845.001.0001/acprof-9780195305845

here is a discussion on it by non-idiots who don't have an agenda

http://www.philosophytalk.org/community/blog/ken-taylor/2013/12/why-be-moral

>>5993
read up on butler

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/butler-moral/

he doesn't base morals on reason like you do, he bases it on conscience/ feeling

believe me on this, I speak the truth, no one else other than this board is deluded enough to believe that the interest of society and self interest is always the same. You can tell just by looking at Walmart, is in in the interest of others that they give away their wealth, is it in the Walton's interest, there conflict between other interest and self interest.

Are there laws, there, conflict bewteen self interest and public interest. If being moral were commonse sense or practical, we would not need laws, just like we don't need laws to dictate other common sense matters, like not punching yourself, or not flushing your money down the toilet etc.

>>5995
Conscience and feeling are not the same thing. You must be religious if you seriously believe this.

>>5995
>he doesn't base morals on reason like you do, he bases it on conscience/ feeling
In that case, fucking dropped. Your conscience only tells you what the moral code you've already accepted advises, so using it as a justification for morality is circular.

>If being moral were commonse sense or practical, we would not need laws, just like we don't need laws to dictate other common sense matters, like not punching yourself, or not flushing your money down the toilet etc.
Or not wearing seatbelts or not gambling or not doing hard drugs?

>>5997
Actually I meant not not wearing seatbelts. Those darn double negatives can be tricky.

>>5995
>You can tell just by looking at Walmart, is in in the interest of others that they give away their wealth, is it in the Walton's interest, there conflict between other interest and self interest.

Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans combined. You're a fucking moron.

>>5999

>Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans combined. You're a fucking moron.

and that affects my arguement about self interest vs public interest how - I realize you lack the intelligence to really understand my point here, but I hope other atheists will look and see that this movement is perhaps not attracting the most rational and most intellgent segments of society

>>5997

>Or not wearing seatbelts or not gambling or not doing hard drugs?

I hardly think those things are matters of common sense

but even if there are some laws that are meant to ensure that people protect their self interest this doesnt change the fact that the majority of laws (dont steal, dont kill etc) deal with areas where self interest or self benefit and the general interest conflict

>>6002
>>believe me on this, I speak the truth, no one else other than this board is deluded enough to believe that the interest of society and self interest is always the same. You can tell just by looking at Walmart, is in in the interest of others that they give away their wealth, is it in the Walton's interest, there conflict between other interest and self interest.

You couldn't tell the meaning from the fucken context, I'm getting more and more convinced that some of you faggots don't even believe what you are saying, you are just really argumentative people

>>6015
Maybe it's not the result of grammatical errors, maybe you are having trouble following because you lack intelligence.

The argument is a simple one,

personal interest and social interest are not always aligned. Distribution of wealth is an example of this.

But to be fair, if you are taking the relatively indefensible position that personal interest and social interest are always aligned, maybe reason is not your strong suit.

Let's just make it real simple, I'm going to let go of every argument I've made and rest on this

If you think it's practical and common sense to be moral, prove it , bring some evidence that is not anecdotal to prove it.

Can you prove it without referring to the consequences of immoral actions, and is it immortal or moral to do something merely because you fear consequences. Also, what about situations in which there are no obvious consequences (see plato ring of geigus/ invisible man story) or simpler, swiping that candy when no one is looking.