Why believe in God?

Since it's approaching this point, I'll post it up.  This is my personal philosophy, which I wrote out once when bored in class.  It's a rough draft, meaning that it may not perfectly reflect the true spirit, and may not encompass all exceptions, but I think it's a pretty good outline of a universal Law (note: NOT a universal morality).  The morality of other's isn't my concern.  Only their overt actions towards me.

No party, regardless of authority, shall, through action or reasonably avoidable neglect, knowingly impede, through physical, mental, or emotional means, another party's interests or pursuit of interests which do not violate the same conditions.

How does sentience prevent you from increasing your power at the expense of others? If it's a matter of compassion, that has to be recognized as a matter of subjectivity and not universality. You can declare you're subjective choice not to harm other wantonly, however must recognize it can't go anywhere beyond that. I think we probably share an understanding on that. What I don't understand is your view on law. What does it mean that the law should reflect your belief?

I am afraid the discussion has weired off topic. This is one of the reasons why some people dismiss religion. Why would a god bother with what happens to some humans in the first place? What you are talking about is a mater of social interaction and has nothing to do with the Nature of God.

Since it's approaching this point, I'll post it up.  This is my personal philosophy, which I wrote out once when bored in class.  It's a rough draft, meaning that it may not perfectly reflect the true spirit, and may not encompass all exceptions, but I think it's a pretty good outline of a universal Law (note: NOT a universal morality).  The morality of other's isn't my concern.  Only their overt actions towards me.

Quote

No party, regardless of authority, shall, through action or reasonably avoidable neglect, knowingly impede, through physical, mental, or emotional means, another party's interests or pursuit of interests which do not violate the same conditions.

Again, you'll probably answer it, what is a distinction between a universal law and universal morality?

How does sentience prevent you from increasing your power at the expense of others? If it's a matter of compassion, that has to be recognized as a matter of subjectivity and not universality. You can declare you're subjective choice not to harm other wantonly, however must recognize it can't go anywhere beyond that. I think we probably share an understanding on that. What I don't understand is your view on law. What does it mean that the law should reflect your belief?

It's partly selfish, partly idealistic.  I believe that my ideals reflect a maximum freedom and a maximum protection.  I believe that a human is free to do whatever - beyond any limits he can imagine, so long as another human isn't harmed.  I suppose it a subjective limit, but such a limit must by definition be subjective.  I personally think it's a good bounds, because it is one that I would want others to use when acting in relation to myself.

Quote from: Benocrates on May 18, 2009, 08:04:47 PM

How does sentience prevent you from increasing your power at the expense of others? If it's a matter of compassion, that has to be recognized as a matter of subjectivity and not universality. You can declare you're subjective choice not to harm other wantonly, however must recognize it can't go anywhere beyond that. I think we probably share an understanding on that. What I don't understand is your view on law. What does it mean that the law should reflect your belief?

It's partly selfish, partly idealistic.  I believe that my ideals reflect a maximum freedom and a maximum protection.  I believe that a human is free to do whatever - beyond any limits he can imagine, so long as another human isn't harmed.  I suppose it a subjective limit, but such a limit must by definition be subjective.  I personally think it's a good bounds, because it is one that I would want others to use when acting in relation to myself.

What about the suffering inflicted on people because of the economic system you contribute to? What about omission of action in regards to others, i.e. not consciously helping someone when you could improve their quality of living.

Quote from: munkirench on May 18, 2009, 08:04:02 PM

Since it's approaching this point, I'll post it up.  This is my personal philosophy, which I wrote out once when bored in class.  It's a rough draft, meaning that it may not perfectly reflect the true spirit, and may not encompass all exceptions, but I think it's a pretty good outline of a universal Law (note: NOT a universal morality).  The morality of other's isn't my concern.  Only their overt actions towards me.

Quote

No party, regardless of authority, shall, through action or reasonably avoidable neglect, knowingly impede, through physical, mental, or emotional means, another party's interests or pursuit of interests which do not violate the same conditions.

Again, you'll probably answer it, what is a distinction between a universal law and universal morality?

Realistically, there isn't one, except for the recognition that is impossible for everyone to share the same morals because thoughts are unbounded, but everyone can be subjected to the same restrictions of physical action.  I'll say it again:  my assertion that my personal morality should be a universal law is inherently selfish.  But I believe that I am smart enough to maintain an objective (enough) viewpoint to confirm that my version of morality does indeed strike a good balance between freedom and protection, which are the only two qualities general enough to bother with.

So, we have established then that, you're moral philosophy entails doing anything you desire, as long as it does not harm others. You hold yourself to this standard, and believe you posess the insights to declare this the best form of moral behavior, for everyone, in every time, in every place.

Quote from: munkirench on May 18, 2009, 08:09:22 PM

Quote from: Benocrates on May 18, 2009, 08:04:47 PM

How does sentience prevent you from increasing your power at the expense of others? If it's a matter of compassion, that has to be recognized as a matter of subjectivity and not universality. You can declare you're subjective choice not to harm other wantonly, however must recognize it can't go anywhere beyond that. I think we probably share an understanding on that. What I don't understand is your view on law. What does it mean that the law should reflect your belief?

It's partly selfish, partly idealistic.  I believe that my ideals reflect a maximum freedom and a maximum protection.  I believe that a human is free to do whatever - beyond any limits he can imagine, so long as another human isn't harmed.  I suppose it a subjective limit, but such a limit must by definition be subjective.  I personally think it's a good bounds, because it is one that I would want others to use when acting in relation to myself.

What about the suffering inflicted on people because of the economic system you contribute to? What about omission of action in regards to others, i.e. not consciously helping someone when you could improve their quality of living.

I don't support this current economic system.  I admit I contribute to it, because to do otherwise would be a self-condemnation to a life of needless suffering.  It would be against my personal code for other people to expect me to self-flagellate so that they can improve their lives.  Idealistically, I would most definitely support a change in the economic system towards a more fair one that eliminates exploitation and is mathematically sound (note: I don't support socialism, but I do think that this "capitalist" system we have is inherently flawed - and not just for reasons of morality, but on mathematical principles which show that it is inherently unstable and incapable of producing the maximum standard of living for everyone.)

So, we have established then that, you're moral philosophy entails doing anything you desire, as long as it does not harm others. You hold yourself to this standard, and believe you posess the insights to declare this the best form of moral behavior, for everyone, in every time, in every place.

Exactly.  It is inherent in any person's moral, subjective, convictions that they are viewed by the holder as being the best possible.  It couldn't be any other way.  But like I said, I'm pretty sure that it's a good balance.  If you disagree, state what improvements you would make, or what total replacement you would suggest?

I primarily goto Sartre and de Beauvoir for ethical philosophy, because it rings the most true for me. I think you would also enjoy them. Their ethial theory, mostly de Beauvoir because Sartre wasn't too interested in ethics, emphasized the importance of allowing the free subjectivity of others, as much as possible. It is a recognition of the other free subjectivities, and allows for a greater ability to create your own subjective truth. However, it must be recognized that any action is ultimatly as morally justified as any other, all actions are entirely free.

Quote from: Jack on May 18, 2009, 07:52:44 PM

Quote from: munkirench on May 18, 2009, 07:50:19 PM

I stated before that there is no such thing as true natural morality.  I personally think that a general guideline of benevolence is a good idea because I'm selfish and I don't want other people to hurt me.  Also, I think that sentient beings have a right to live undisturbed.  If you want to delve into nonsentient beings, like animals or infants, I'm game, but it's not really my goal to discuss it.

I think that my version of morality is better than most others because it allows people to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

So you're a follower of Randian philosophy?

I don't know what that is.  I prefer not to use labels, because I my ideas aren't explicitly based on anyone else's.

Your view ("sentient beings have a right to live undisturbed", "you're free to do whatever you want, so long you don't harm or affect others") is individualistic and is similar to Rand's virtue of selfishness. Nobody interrupts one another; everyone must work on his-or-her own and must not harm others, for maximum productivity and personal freedom respectively. According to her "selfishness," a truly selfish man neither sacrifices others to himself nor sacrifices himself to others.

Do you believe that it is vital to help others in need?

ITT: Unrelated talk on morality and ethics.

ITT: Unrelated talk on morality and ethics.

Yeah, digression... oh well.  It's interesting 

Quote from: munkirench on May 18, 2009, 07:57:08 PM

Quote from: Jack on May 18, 2009, 07:52:44 PM

Quote from: munkirench on May 18, 2009, 07:50:19 PM

I stated before that there is no such thing as true natural morality.  I personally think that a general guideline of benevolence is a good idea because I'm selfish and I don't want other people to hurt me.  Also, I think that sentient beings have a right to live undisturbed.  If you want to delve into nonsentient beings, like animals or infants, I'm game, but it's not really my goal to discuss it.

I think that my version of morality is better than most others because it allows people to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

So you're a follower of Randian philosophy?

I don't know what that is.  I prefer not to use labels, because I my ideas aren't explicitly based on anyone else's.

Your view ("sentient beings have a right to live undisturbed", "you're free to do whatever you want, so long you don't harm or affect others") is individualistic and is similar to Rand's virtue of selfishness. Nobody interrupts one another; everyone must work on his-or-her own and must not harm others, for maximum productivity and personal freedom respectively. According to her "selfishness," a truly selfish man neither sacrifices others to himself nor sacrifices himself to others.

Do you believe that it is vital to help others in need?

I don't believe that one is morally obligated to help another if it puts him in a significantly lesser position, but I would personally encourage it.  I believe that in the case of negligible personal sacrifice, yes, one is obligated to help another in dire need.

ITT: Unrelated talk on morality and ethics.

try and keep up, chief

Quote from: Jack on May 18, 2009, 08:23:40 PM

Quote from: munkirench on May 18, 2009, 07:57:08 PM

Quote from: Jack on May 18, 2009, 07:52:44 PM

Quote from: munkirench on May 18, 2009, 07:50:19 PM

I stated before that there is no such thing as true natural morality.  I personally think that a general guideline of benevolence is a good idea because I'm selfish and I don't want other people to hurt me.  Also, I think that sentient beings have a right to live undisturbed.  If you want to delve into nonsentient beings, like animals or infants, I'm game, but it's not really my goal to discuss it.

I think that my version of morality is better than most others because it allows people to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

So you're a follower of Randian philosophy?

I don't know what that is.  I prefer not to use labels, because I my ideas aren't explicitly based on anyone else's.

Your view ("sentient beings have a right to live undisturbed", "you're free to do whatever you want, so long you don't harm or affect others") is individualistic and is similar to Rand's virtue of selfishness. Nobody interrupts one another; everyone must work on his-or-her own and must not harm others, for maximum productivity and personal freedom respectively. According to her "selfishness," a truly selfish man neither sacrifices others to himself nor sacrifices himself to others.

Do you believe that it is vital to help others in need?

I don't believe that one is morally obligated to help another if it puts him in a significantly lesser position, but I would personally encourage it.  I believe that in the case of negligible personal sacrifice, yes, one is obligated to help another in dire need.

Obligated? By what/whom

I guess you were referring to the side of a divine being inspiring some moral code in humans. In my opinion, this is the most trivial task a god can do. Nevertheless, He can do it remarkably well. This does not justify its existence, however.

You must realize that anything that has to do with 'one person doing or not doing something to another one' is a matter of social interaction. Hence, trying to find the purpose of God in it would be equal to give God antropomorphic characterstics. Hence, the egoism and bigamy of most world religions.

Quote from: munkirench on May 18, 2009, 08:32:15 PM

Quote from: Jack on May 18, 2009, 08:23:40 PM

Quote from: munkirench on May 18, 2009, 07:57:08 PM

Quote from: Jack on May 18, 2009, 07:52:44 PM

Quote from: munkirench on May 18, 2009, 07:50:19 PM

I stated before that there is no such thing as true natural morality.  I personally think that a general guideline of benevolence is a good idea because I'm selfish and I don't want other people to hurt me.  Also, I think that sentient beings have a right to live undisturbed.  If you want to delve into nonsentient beings, like animals or infants, I'm game, but it's not really my goal to discuss it.

I think that my version of morality is better than most others because it allows people to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

So you're a follower of Randian philosophy?

Obligated? By what/whom
I don't know what that is.  I prefer not to use labels, because I my ideas aren't explicitly based on anyone else's.

Your view ("sentient beings have a right to live undisturbed", "you're free to do whatever you want, so long you don't harm or affect others") is individualistic and is similar to Rand's virtue of selfishness. Nobody interrupts one another; everyone must work on his-or-her own and must not harm others, for maximum productivity and personal freedom respectively. According to her "selfishness," a truly selfish man neither sacrifices others to himself nor sacrifices himself to others.

Do you believe that it is vital to help others in need?

I don't believe that one is morally obligated to help another if it puts him in a significantly lesser position, but I would personally encourage it.  I believe that in the case of negligible personal sacrifice, yes, one is obligated to help another in dire need.

morally obligated.  yes, it's a subjective obligation.  and i do believe there's a difference between morally "obligated" and morally "encouraged." - what one should do and what one must do, according to a specific code of ethics.

I guess you were referring to the side of a divine being inspiring some moral code in humans. In my opinion, this is the most trivial task a god can do. Nevertheless, He can do it remarkably well. This does not justify its existence, however.

You must realize that anything that has to do with 'one person doing or not doing something to another one' is a matter of social interaction. Hence, trying to find the purpose of God in it would be equal to give God antropomorphic characterstics. Hence, the egoism and bigamy of most world religions.

How does bigamy have anything to do with this?

Quote from: bridget on May 18, 2009, 08:37:03 PM

I guess you were referring to the side of a divine being inspiring some moral code in humans. In my opinion, this is the most trivial task a god can do. Nevertheless, He can do it remarkably well. This does not justify its existence, however.

You must realize that anything that has to do with 'one person doing or not doing something to another one' is a matter of social interaction. Hence, trying to find the purpose of God in it would be equal to give God antropomorphic characterstics. Hence, the egoism and bigamy of most world religions.

How does bigamy have anything to do with this?

lapsus linguae. I meant bigotry

Quote from: Benocrates on May 18, 2009, 08:33:09 PM

Quote from: munkirench on May 18, 2009, 08:32:15 PM

Quote from: Jack on May 18, 2009, 08:23:40 PM

Quote from: munkirench on May 18, 2009, 07:57:08 PM

Quote from: Jack on May 18, 2009, 07:52:44 PM

Quote from: munkirench on May 18, 2009, 07:50:19 PM

I stated before that there is no such thing as true natural morality.  I personally think that a general guideline of benevolence is a good idea because I'm selfish and I don't want other people to hurt me.  Also, I think that sentient beings have a right to live undisturbed.  If you want to delve into nonsentient beings, like animals or infants, I'm game, but it's not really my goal to discuss it.

I think that my version of morality is better than most others because it allows people to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

So you're a follower of Randian philosophy?

Obligated? By what/whom
I don't know what that is.  I prefer not to use labels, because I my ideas aren't explicitly based on anyone else's.

Your view ("sentient beings have a right to live undisturbed", "you're free to do whatever you want, so long you don't harm or affect others") is individualistic and is similar to Rand's virtue of selfishness. Nobody interrupts one another; everyone must work on his-or-her own and must not harm others, for maximum productivity and personal freedom respectively. According to her "selfishness," a truly selfish man neither sacrifices others to himself nor sacrifices himself to others.

Do you believe that it is vital to help others in need? You are absolutly free to be or do anything.

I don't believe that one is morally obligated to help another if it puts him in a significantly lesser position, but I would personally encourage it.  I believe that in the case of negligible personal sacrifice, yes, one is obligated to help another in dire need.

morally obligated.  yes, it's a subjective obligation.  and i do believe there's a difference between morally "obligated" and morally "encouraged." - what one should do and what one must do, according to a specific code of ethics.

How could you be morally obligated by your own subjective morality.

you are inserting reply text in the wrong area of the quotes.

It is an internal assessment derived from the fact that if one truly believes in a set of moral codes, then there is an absolute (albeit admittedly subjective) right vs. wrong.  Something one MUST do is something that would be WRONG not to do.  Something one should do is something that is the "right" thing to do.

The force of obligation not to do something wrong is stronger (in my opinion) than the obligation to do something right.  Although I admit that in my espoused philosophy, there is little wiggle room because most of the definition regards what is wrong, not what is right.  The wiggle comes in from the built-in subjectivity of "reasonable neglect".

Moral obligation is subjective? What happened to deontological ethics, where it is a moral obligation that you bind or act in accordance to your duty, independent of mind and personal beliefs?

Yours will be moral inclination, not moral obligation.

Moral obligation is subjective? What happened to deontological ethics, where it is a moral obligation that you bind or act in accordance to your duty, independent of mind and personal beliefs?

I'm pretty much just making this up as I go along.  But don't mistake that for trolling... I'm not very versed in "laws" of ethics or concrete/established principles.  I'm just doing my best to convey my beliefs.

Yes, duty would be a better word.  I don't believe that it is someone's duty to help another unless such action would require insignificant sacrifice (where insignificant is subject to the person's own circumstances, especially when compared to the situation which requires assistance).  For example, it is not a person's duty to sacrifice a limb in order to save the life of another.  It might be morally encouraged, but it is not a duty.  It would be duty to save the life of another if the greatest risk was a few bumps and bruises.  Such boundaries are subjective.

As for obligation, to say that a subjective moral principle is absolute in that subjectivity is meaningless. There has to be a recognition that it can be changed at any time. Nobody can ever be obligated, because they can change their mind whenever they decide.

Yes, duty would be a better word.  I don't believe that it is someone's duty to help another unless such action would require insignificant sacrifice (where insignificant is subject to the person's own circumstances, especially when compared to the situation which requires assistance).  For example, it is not a person's duty to sacrifice a limb in order to save the life of another.  It might be morally encouraged, but it is not a duty.  It would be duty to save the life of another if the greatest risk was a few bumps and bruises.  Such boundaries are subjective.

Duty has nothing to do with consequences. Whether the consequence is inferior or bad, it is still a duty to consider the welfare of others. I'm not arguing about anything; I'm giving the definition. As I've said before, I think what you meant is inclination, not obligation: it is morally inclined to help others, dependent on one's personal beliefs or wants in accordance to the consequences.

As for obligation, to say that a subjective moral principle is absolute in that subjectivity is meaningless. There has to be a recognition that it can be changed at any time. Nobody can ever be obligated, because they can change their mind whenever they decide.

I think that, as mentioned above, "duty" is a better word.  However, I think that one can indeed obligate themselves if they feel strongly enough.  For example, I could not simply "change my mind" about my moral principles at the drop of a hat, because they are ingrained deep into my psyche.  My principles are the way that I view the entire world - I would be aware of a great inconsistency if I tried to force myself to violate these principles.  I admit that it is possible to change the fundamental principles by which I live, but only over slow evolution of ideas, or through a single life-shattering event which traumatizes my mind into reformation.  I recognize that my principles are subjective.  I also recognize that in certain situations, I would be obliged by them to act in a certain way.  Any action on my part to the contrary would result in extreme internal turmoil which would not be easily, if ever, dismissed.

Just because morals are subjective (they must be) does not mean they do not impart a sense of obligation.  Obligation itself is a meaningless word unless subjectively defined to mean that one MUST do something, under pain of self-denial, -delusion, and indefinite anxiety.

Quote from: munkirench on May 18, 2009, 09:02:27 PM

Yes, duty would be a better word.  I don't believe that it is someone's duty to help another unless such action would require insignificant sacrifice (where insignificant is subject to the person's own circumstances, especially when compared to the situation which requires assistance).  For example, it is not a person's duty to sacrifice a limb in order to save the life of another.  It might be morally encouraged, but it is not a duty.  It would be duty to save the life of another if the greatest risk was a few bumps and bruises.  Such boundaries are subjective.

Duty has nothing to do with consequences. Whether the consequence is inferior or bad, it is still a duty to consider the welfare of others. I'm not arguing about anything; I'm giving the definition. As I've said before, I think what you meant is inclination, not obligation: it is morally inclined to help others, dependent on one's personal beliefs or wants in accordance to the consequences.

I'm pretty sure this discussion is fruitless.  We've devolved into semantics which I don't care at all about.  My point is to state that my personal morals state that no person is required to do anything except consciously avoid harming others.  This includes, to a certain degree, neglect.  Furthermore, a Supreme Being is not necessary to codify a set of decent morals, because the morals of such a Supreme Being are invented by humans anyhow.  It is exactly akin to my assertion that my morals are good enough to form into universal law, but since Gods usually create laws restricting the actions of others, or obliging them, religious law is unacceptable for universal law.  For universal law, one set of morals must be agreed upon, and I believe that mine are benign and encompassing enough to allow for all other sets of morals which simply agree that human life must be respected.

I'm going to bed.

This conversation would have to develop into an analysis of psychology and existential philosophy. However, I disagree with your position that your morals can dictate your actions, i.e. that your subjective morality is an innate feature of your inner being/psyche/soul, etc. I would argue that you don't necessarily exist in such a way, but are in fact nothingness itself. You are free to choose at any time what you think, feel, and believe. Although it may appear difficult, or imossible, it is simply your desire for wholeness asserting itself over your existentially free (and empty) subjective existence. It is your desire to have a sense of stability that produces the unnerving results of going against your "moral code." It is not a feature of your reality, but merely a sign of your weakness and bad faith.