<p>So basically from your view, morality doesn’t exist, but you as a human think it does?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It does exist, in the same sense that any of my thoughts exist. I have tangible limbs, eyes, and hair. I have an intangible moral code that I also carry with me.</p>
<p>Morality is an organic creation.</p>
<p>Here’s the problem. You all are looking at only half of the ethics equation. Ethics consists of two parts. 1) What is the right/virtuous way to act? and 2) what is the greatest good? An ethical system is incomplete unless you consider both parts, but so far you have only talked about the first part. </p>
<p>While you can discuss the first part in mundane terms, it is much harder to come up with the second without invoking some spiritual or divine essence.</p>
<p>^^ But as you yourself said your morality is yours only, and is no more valid than anyone else’s. You are simply biased in favor of it.</p>
<p>Yet if you are able to understand and state this, then why do you still cling to this morality?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Everyone’s morality is theirs only. My morality is a part of me–I made it up. Your spiritual morality is a part of you–you made it up. You are simply biased in favor of your moral codes, perhaps as dictated by the Church if you happen to follow a western religion.</p>
<p>I cling to mine no differently than you cling to yours. Earlier, I argued that both are moralities are baseless. I still think this. However, if you think spiritual morality has substance, then you cannot discredit my morality. Our moral codes are equally arbitrary.</p>
<p>The point of these last few posts wasn’t to validate my morality. I completely made it up as we went along. My point was to discredit yours. My made up morality is no different than your spiritual morality in terms of foundational substance.</p>
<p>A moral code dictated by the Church is not stronger than a moral code followed by individuals. Humans can collectively determine the greater good without an outside source.</p>
<p>^ Given the belief that good and evil truly do exist in an absolute sense, it is perfectly logical to act morally and to expect others to do so as well. Given the belief that they do not, and are merely the result of physical laws, it does not.</p>
<p>humans cannot collectively determine the “greater good” unless some standard exists against which to measure good and evil.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I just spent 5 posts describing how it could happen in a society full of atheist moralists. The ultimate moral code that everyone willingly takes as their own must maximize the greater good or certain individuals would reject the moral code in favor of their own creation. Like we said, when the individuals reject the societal moral code, then either they are immoral (according to society), or they will ultimately progress the moral code for future individuals.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It requires certain assumptions to establish absolute good and evil, which in turn establish absolute morality. You must have faith that a Higher Being exists, and that this Higher Being indirectly dictates what is morally right or wrong.</p>
<p>Likewise, it merely requires certain assumptions to establish morality in atheistic society. You assume that there neurological activity often results in similar thought patterns in various humans. These thought patters dictate morality, and these various moral codes can be clumped into philosophical doctrine. These doctrines are established in society, and then society molds the individual moral codes of its members.</p>
<p>There are many other combination of assumptions that will also lead to a moral code among atheists. Really, atheists and theists are morally the same. Theists simply made an assumption that there is a Higher Being to establish their moral code. Atheists establish their moral code via other means. </p>
<p>Spiritual faith involves an institution/community dictating the moral code as established by a Higher Being. Atheistic morality involves a society fusing the moral codes as established by its individual members. Both are baseless, but potentially guide society in a “healthy” direction.</p>
<p>If the moral code is absolute, then it makes sense to talk in terms of another person doing “wrong”. If it is not absolute, then talk of this sort is simply the result of each human’s delusion that their own morals apply to others.</p>
<p>An assumption that individual morals can fuse into philosophical doctrines is a baseless assumption. An assumption that morals are absolute and determined by a separate being is a baseless assumption.</p>
<p>Either assumption can be used to establish an absolute moral code. Call it “delusion” if you want. If you can call an atheist deluded for believing his morality can be incorporated in a societal moral code, then an atheist can call you deluded for believing in a God.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d like to see you take mifune on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not saying that atheists can’t abide by a moral code. I’m saying that the idea of absolute right and wrong is innately spiritual, whether one believes in God or not. And if someone follows a “moral code” because they find it beneficial rather than a reflection of absolute right and wrong then it’s not actually a moral code for them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Morality doesn’t change. Moral codes change and die out over time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolute right and absolute wrong are intangibles. They are figments of thought. You do not know anything about absolute wrong or right, except what is taught to you by a Church. Naturally, you are thus inclined to believe that right and wrong are innately spiritual. One thing is obvious: morality is unobservable.</p>
<p>You can tell me how you logically reached a conclusion that there is an absolute right and wrong. You can’t tell me absolute right and wrong is conclusive if and only if I use your logic unless that’s how you define right and wrong. Like I’ve said–that’s what you’re doing. You’re telling me that morality is spiritual and then saying that all other moral codes are not “actually a moral code” because they aren’t spiritual.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely false. If I don’t believe in God, then your “absolute morality” as defined by a false god is merely an individual morality that you are forcing on others. </p>
<p>This is no different than any individual having a moral code and expecting others to abide by this code.</p>
<p>This distinction is key to everything I’ve said in prior posts.</p>
<p>Your morality is only absolute because you make an assumption that God exists. I have previously shown that with the right set of assumptions, an atheistic moral code is absolute and applies to an entire society as well. It is simply a fusion of individual moral codes that each member willingly adheres to.</p>
<p>Okay this was fun. I’ve never debated, discussed, or thought about morality before. You guys have made me think of some new things, but I’m getting tired of this. I’ll back out for a while and see where this thread heads.</p>
<p>^ It was nice to debate you! Glad I made you think, and I hope you keep on thinking about them… It’s the most important thing you’ll ever do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t have an “absolute morality” (your words), I have a moral code which I believe (or hope) is a reasonable approximation of actual Morality. And no, that’s not any different from an individual having their own moral code (which they obviously believe approximates actual morality, hence the reason for expecting others to abide by it). I don’t think we’re disagreeing here. I also don’t think this has anything to do with the sentence you labeled “absolutely false.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps the issue here is over the definition of spiritual. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with God. From Wikipedia - *"Spirituality can refer to an ultimate or immaterial reality … can encompass
belief in immaterial realities
or experiences of the immanent or transcendent nature of the world."* In this case, right and wrong would be the immaterial realities.</p>
<p>And I said that so-called moral codes based on self-gain aren’t actual moral codes because they aren’t based on right and wrong.</p>
<p>I agree with everything TCBH said and science wins when competing against religion, as always.</p>
<p>Really? I always had you pegged as an immoralist.</p>
<p>I have finally allotted myself the time required to scan through the 47 pages of material since I last departed from participation in this thread. I’ll post a response soon.</p>
<p>Mifune, you have such tremendous ability to write unique and sophisticated in disputations. With that kind of religious and hectic mind, I believe you can get that far. I’m impressed by your talented and inclined tactics on CC.</p>
<p>Science wins for progress. Religion wins for ideology.</p>
<p>IMHO, tolerance is the key for both. If you are against science or religion, so be it. Just keep it to yourself.</p>