A Dark Place

[DCK]

I mean if you had the oppurtunity to and were an atheist I literally don't see the problem with doing this lacking a legitamate reason to if you had already identified what morality is and the fact that it is a concept that is part of you but that you needent follow.

That's a bit off, I think. You make it sound as though atheists don't have real moral because they have nothing to pay responsibility to, and that's frankly untrue. We all pay responsibility to society and that's what keeps us 'in order'. Although I'm an atheist, I'm very certain that I won't murder and certainly not for my own profit.

[Aimless]

You won't get a proper answer as you're currently asking an impossible question.

 

Give us a real example, not a fictitious character. Show us someone 'normal' that has killed someone unprovoked purely for personal gain. I'm not saying you can't, but how are we supposed to give you an answer unless you do? We can't work on a hypothetical case study and give you real-world answers.

[The3rdChildren]

Death creates nothing.

[Iun]

"Moral" is not a particularly useful term as notions of morality change with time: For example, to the ancient Greeks, homosexuals were not only "moral" but superior to heterosexuals. Look at the way people dressed as recently as the 50's -if there had been women wearing trousers back then, they would have been classed as "immoral".

 

Our legal system in the West is, however, based on the Ten Commandments, and therefore they dictate in a round about way that we follow a religiously acceptable code.

 

Is there right and wrong? It's all relative: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. One man's doctor is another man's abomination. Good and evil, light and dark are perspectival.

 

Individuals make the choices, then find other individuals with the same ideals and form a group. The group becomes a movement, the movement becomes a society and the society will invariably breed rebels and dissidents who are unhappy with the majority rule -even the "majority" may be unhappy with the situation, but their apathy prevents them from changing it.

 

However, despite these individual societies, there appear to be core rules which permeate most societies depending on the openness and the permissive attitudes prevalent. Some societies may only have a few rules that link them to others: some may be virtually indistinguishable but for one or two minor nuances that set them apart.

 

I think the witches do have it right though:

 

"An' it harm no-one, do what thou will."

[Haden]

The Byzantine Emperor Phokaus overthrew and murded the previous emperor and his entire family to gain power. Sierously in ancient times it happened a hell of a lot. Or for an example that english people can relate to more http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/DelarocheKingEdward.jpg

That was a clear cut murder for power of the highest order.

 

Again I am not saying that Athiests dont have whatever morality is I am jsut saying why should I follow a moral code in this respect if I was one.

 

And I dont think that I even need to give you a real example I think a lot of you think I am saying that this person has killed someone unprovoked for no reason. The reason is power it happens all the time dont you guys watch Morse? Sierously mafia members, Buisness leaders etc etc. Im not having a go it jsut bemuses me that we have got stuck on this point.

 

To Iun hmm you have some point but a lot of morality is universal. Show me a culture in which cowardice (dont say the french!) is rewarded or killing someone for gain or torture applauded.

 

Again I really dont want this to descend to flaming at all. Which I feel it is drifting to slowly. I am just still trying to get my answer. And we keep going back to either. I think atheists are immoral which I have never said. Or people dont think murdering someone for selfish gain happens which it must have done literally millions of times.

 

But yeh I wont end on the offensive just on the idea that I hope someone can give me a nice snappy answer I feel like Paxman atm

[Iun]

At the end of the day it boils down to this: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

If you feel free to stab someone, there is the worry that someone else is free to stab you too. Therefore you do not stab anyone, and you rely on the fact that no-one else wants a stabbing so you don't get stabbed.

 

It is mainly fear, tired as that may seem. If you open up a stab free-for-all, you run the risk of you or someone else getting killed. So you put these restrictions down in order to prevent it happening to you. It is selfish fear that motivates this.

[DCK]

Again I am not saying that Athiests dont have whatever morality is I am jsut saying why should I follow a moral code in this respect if I was one.

Though I'm not sure if you mean it that way, I'm kinda feeling the annoying 'I'm religious so my life has superior organisation to yours' attitude flowing from comments like this. This is not true; religion makes philosophy and morality and other things easier for you by having an answer ready for you from your church's teachings, but that's another discussion. In short, meaning that we don't have a moral code presented to us on a piece of paper by the Bible doesn't mean we don't see the necessity of following moral codes.

 

I agree with Iun. All moral codes have developed so that they help a culture develop best, making a culture develop and with that spreading their morals. If there are certain morals like killing for gain or torture, it's obvious that the culture won't develop.

[Haden]

Though I'm not sure if you mean it that way, I'm kinda feeling the annoying 'I'm religious so my life has superior organisation to yours' attitude flowing from comments like this. This is not true; religion makes philosophy and morality and other things easier for you by having an answer ready for you from your church's teachings, but that's another discussion. In short, meaning that we don't have a moral code presented to us on a piece of paper by the Bible doesn't mean we don't see the necessity of following moral codes.

 

I agree with Iun. All moral codes have developed so that they help a culture develop best, making a culture develop and with that spreading their morals. If there are certain morals like killing for gain or torture, it's obvious that the culture won't develop.

 

I really really am not bringing this conversation up to parade some sort of moral superiority. This isnt the argument that atheism leads to immorality. It is a question about the nature of morality and why it should be followed.

 

For your point of moral codes helping a culture develop best. Sacrificing slavery proberly accelerated the decline of the British Empire. I agree with you that murder and stealing within ones group is benifical for the culture. However what about killing groups of another group? That we see in all animal groupings but is talked against by something like the Good Samaratian.

 

This is another strand and I really want this discussion to be one without any sort of bad feeling. I am literally just raising a question to find an answer not trying to attack atheists.

 

To Iun the do unto others point. This is true but in this scenario noone will know like the princes in the tower murder was probably supposed to work out.

 

Again thanks and again no bad feelings to anyone on this. Or am I just saying that to serve my own purposes or is it a moral choice! I jest I jest! :wink:

[Supergrunch]

Again I am not saying that Athiests dont have whatever morality is I am jsut saying why should I follow a moral code in this respect if I was one.

What has following a moral code got to do with being an atheist? I think bringing atheism into this part of the discussion is meaningless.

2

[Haden]

Ok here we go. I am not saying that atheists cant follow a moral code or do it less or more than people with a religious faith. What I am saying is that if a moral code as an atheist may say, is just a herd instinct for example why should it stop me killing someone. I am not saying how it would stop me, eg scarring me for life etc I am also not saying that atheists dont follow moral codes.

 

All I am saying is why philosphically should I follow it. If you are religious you may follow a moral code for a positive a love of your diety or a negative just doing it so you dont get punished by him/her/it. But because of the state of nature and supernature you follow a moral code.

 

So jsut to clear this up so we have no more talk about this as I have said it so many times.

 

I am not saying atheists are more or less immoral than anyone.

 

I am not asking why I wouldnt be able to kill someone more why I shouldnt.

 

What I am trying to look at in a passive neutral manner is. What is teh nature of morality of atheists and if a person could get away with an action that is deemed as wrong but benifits him/her why shouldnt he?

 

Again peace etc :wink:

[Supergrunch]

I still think the same holds true. If atheists follow a moral code, they follow it because they are not psychopaths. Now, if a psychopath was religious, that gives them an additional reason for following a moral code. Yet you seem to be assuming that all people are psychopaths.

1

[Aimless]

The Byzantine Emperor Phokaus overthrew and murded the previous emperor and his entire family to gain power. Sierously in ancient times it happened a hell of a lot. Or for an example that english people can relate to more http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/DelarocheKingEdward.jpg

That was a clear cut murder for power of the highest order.

Reading Phocas' Wikipedia entry, his motivation seems pretty clear: he wanted vengeance against Maurice, the previous emperor, for his many wrongdoings against the Byzantine army, of which Phocas was an officer. That isn't unprovoked, and reading between the lines it seems that Phocas was proclaimed emperor due to his leading of the mutiny rather than any vested interest in the power.

 

I'm no history student, so I'm not sure which king that picture is referring to. Richard III?

 

And I dont think that I even need to give you a real example I think a lot of you think I am saying that this person has killed someone unprovoked for no reason. The reason is power it happens all the time dont you guys watch Morse? Sierously mafia members, Buisness leaders etc etc. Im not having a go it jsut bemuses me that we have got stuck on this point.

That's because I believe you're dismissing the point without thinking about it, and not looking past the power to the reasons behind it. Criminal organisations are insular, protective groups; they have to be, as they lead a dog-eat-dog life. Theirs is a life of twisted politics, and if they are not the ones in power than they are vulnerable — their family is vulnerable.

 

Power is often the reason for murder, but the reasons for wanting that power are more complex than power for power's sake.

 

And I do think you need to give a real-world example, as otherwise we're working with the internal logic of a hypothetical situation, the findings of which can't bring about the the answer you're seeking.

 

We've said that morality and conscience stops people from needlessly murdering, and your devil's advocate has replied with, "But what if we didn't have morality or conscience?" Obviously if we decide that this hypothetical creature — as they certainly aren't human anymore — didn't have any of the things that people have in place to stop murder, then no, there's nothing to stop them. But what has that proved? That someone without any reason not to murder is liable to murder; or in other words, nothing.

 

Again I really dont want this to descend to flaming at all. Which I feel it is drifting to slowly. I am just still trying to get my answer. And we keep going back to either. I think atheists are immoral which I have never said. Or people dont think murdering someone for selfish gain happens which it must have done literally millions of times.

I think any lick of flame is due to the phrasing of your comments towards atheism: they have an air of the holier-than-though. I'm not saying this is how you feel, but we can only work with what you give us and that which you have reads in a disparaging manner, regardless of intent.

 

But yeh I wont end on the offensive just on the idea that I hope someone can give me a nice snappy answer I feel like Paxman atm

There is no snappy answer. It's a complex question which requires a complex answer; Paxman asks complex questions but demands simple answers, which is why he never gets proper results, only entertaining ones.

[Supergrunch]

Aimless, I don't see what's wrong with discussing a hypothetical situation...

[Haden]

Reading Phocas' Wikipedia entry, his motivation seems pretty clear: he wanted vengeance against Maurice, the previous emperor, for his many wrongdoings against the Byzantine army, of which Phocas was an officer. That isn't unprovoked, and reading between the lines it seems that Phocas was proclaimed emperor due to his leading of the mutiny rather than any vested interest in the power.

 

I'm no history student, so I'm not sure which king that picture is referring to. Richard III?

 

 

That's because I believe you're dismissing the point without thinking about it, and not looking past the power to the reasons behind it. Criminal organisations are insular, protective groups; they have to be, as they lead a dog-eat-dog life. Theirs is a life of twisted politics, and if they are not the ones in power than they are vulnerable — their family is vulnerable.

 

Power is often the reason for murder, but the reasons for wanting that power are more complex than power for power's sake.

 

And I do think you need to give a real-world example, as otherwise we're working with the internal logic of a hypothetical situation, the findings of which can't bring about the the answer you're seeking.

 

We've said that morality and conscience stops people from needlessly murdering, and your devil's advocate has replied with, "But what if we didn't have morality or conscience?" Obviously if we decide that this hypothetical creature — as they certainly aren't human anymore — didn't have any of the things that people have in place to stop murder, then no, there's nothing to stop them. But what has that proved? That someone without any reason not to murder is liable to murder; or in other words, nothing.

 

 

I think any lick of flame is due to the phrasing of your comments towards atheism: they have an air of the holier-than-though. I'm not saying this is how you feel, but we can only work with what you give us and that which you have reads in a disparaging manner, regardless of intent.

 

 

There is no snappy answer. It's a complex question which requires a complex answer; Paxman asks complex questions but demands simple answers, which is why he never gets proper results, only entertaining ones.

 

Hey thanks for the uber reply I will try and address each point. Phocas is an intresting case I am studying him at the moment. He did react to a seen wrong done to him but his motivations were for power and morality really didnt get in his way. Some of the things he got up to were pretty horrific. They were seen as a justification for the Persian King to declare war! But I see your point so we will move on to.

 

Yep Richard 3rd. If this happened it was pure power politics a murder for power against his own nephews? So family ties and children empathy bonds broken for powers sake!

 

Ok your point about criminal organisations. Some who had control of say a whole town would just kill people in the open or behind closed doors for pure power econmic gain. Happened with the mafia in the 30s and look at Sven Samuriu if you want a fictiocious account.

 

Reasons for wanting power may have a good cause in the end. Helping your family your nation etc. They mayy be completely self serving.

 

I kind of dont know what your looking for here. A real life example. If you want me to trawl my history books or wikipedia I will. But I mean this sort of thing happens all the time. Look at the Sudan warlords battling for power, overthrowing themselves for supermacy or others. By unprovoked I dont mean without a cause in the sense that the person wouldnt profit from it. I mean without a moral cause. Like the person has been wronged etc. Like Kurusha the Persian King that Herclius fought against. He sacked and killed cities that had already surrended to him for pure power games. But to be honest we neednt even turn to kings and the mafia. Small wrongs happen all the time for the purposes of a gain of power. A friend may insult another friend in front of a female to gain respect from her. Bullying happens as one person fits into a group that attacks the weak indivdual. I fear this discussion may spiral out of control if Iopen up to many scenarios though lol.

 

To teh morality thing. I dont mean without morality I mean being able to bypass it.

 

The thing with this discussion is. I think it is specifically looking at atheism because of its lack of outside rules. And in this sense I am singling it out because of this uniqeness. I am not attacking it it just fits perfectly into the line of thought taht this discussion of morality entails. In fact without atheism this discussion would be impsossible.

 

And yeh I guess so poor old Paxman what a legend. But I do think there is an answer to this that is relativly simple but noone is answering it.

 

Thanks for the uber reply though!

 

I still think the same holds true. If atheists follow a moral code, they follow it because they are not psychopaths. Now, if a psychopath was religious, that gur poiives them an additional reason for following a moral code. Yet you seem to be assuming that all people are psychopaths.

1

 

No no quite the opposite. I am saying that in our natural state. Without outside religion we still have a moral code but what is it? And again in our natural state sometimes murder occurs and why should we care if we just follow nature as a precedent of how to live.

[DCK]

Quite simply I think a major part of it is the thing that makes us 'normal people' from psychopaths: compassion.

[Aimless]

Aimless, I don't see what's wrong with discussing a hypothetical situation...

I don't mean there is anything intrinsically wrong with hypothetical situations for exploring interesting questions, but Haden wants an answer, and such situations can't birth definitive responses. Also, those answers we've given he has, in my opinion, sidestepped rather than dealt with.

 

I don't like the internal logic of the situation, as it leads to a rhetorical question: if there was nothing standing in someone's way between murdering someone for personal gain — be it social, mental, or physical — then obviously there is nothing to stop them. But that has been dismissed as an answer already, putting those who give it in an impossible situation.

 

You can ask, "Why?" forever, but it won't get you anywhere.

 

In my mind, conscience is what defines humanity; everyone is born with a certain sense of justice, no matter how infantile it might be. If that is stripped away from us then, no, there is nothing to stop us doing whatever hedonism demands. But for that you give up humanity and become a biological machine. You are no longer human, as you've forsaken that which sets us apart.

 

Humans value humanity, and the thought of losing it is frightening. People are frightened of the evolution theory as it makes humanity 'less': not created by a celestial being, just another step up the Darwinian ladder. We crave individuality, revel in being 'special', and who would sacrifice such a wonderful gift as the self?

 

(Sorry if I'm not very eloquent. I've never been good at expressing myself.)

 

Oh, I think another thing to take into account is what we're defining as 'murder'. I'm trying to answer your question as if the hypothetical person was going to kill someone by their own hand, not order someone else to do it for them — that's why I'm not fond of referring to king's orders, or boss's commands.

 

When there is a big enough buffer between yourself and reality anything is easy: I have killed thousands of people across all the games I've played, but that is because they are so far removed from the real-world that it doesn't mean anything to me. I don't feel guilt because I've no reason to, because they aren't really people. But this mindset is as easily applicable to a commander pouring over a map in a military bunker as a nobody twiddling a joypad in front of their TV.

[Haden]

Apparently Ricard smothered his own nephews with a pillow! But to be honest all I want and I have enjoyed the discussions we have had around this suject. Is for anyone atheist or not to tell me why it is 'wrong' to kill someone for your own ends.

[Aimless]

Apparently Ricard smothered his own nephews with a pillow!

Is that true, though? As far as I'm aware it's a debate that still goes on today; hardly a 'clear cut murder for power of the highest order', as you put it.

 

But to be honest all I want and I have enjoyed the discussions we have had around this suject. Is for anyone atheist or not to tell me why it is 'wrong' to kill someone for your own ends.

Because our conscience tells us killing is wrong. Overriding something like this is near impossible, as it colours everything we do, every thought we have or decision we make. You can be born with a poorly developed conscience, but I don't think you can forcibly subdue that which you have as it is an innate limiter on your behaviour. I can't convince myself to fly as my body simply isn't capable of doing it, and I couldn't kill someone unprovoked as my conscience stops me from doing so — if I push at either boundary I risk causing myself permanent damage.

[Supergrunch]

I don't mean there is anything intrinsically wrong with hypothetical situations for exploring interesting questions, but Haden wants an answer, and such situations can't birth definitive responses. Also, those answers we've given he has, in my opinion, sidestepped rather than dealt with.

 

I don't like the internal logic of the situation, as it leads to a rhetorical question: if there was nothing standing in someone's way between murdering someone for personal gain — be it social, mental, or physical — then obviously there is nothing to stop them. But that has been dismissed as an answer already, putting those who give it in an impossible situation.

 

You can ask, "Why?" forever, but it won't get you anywhere.

 

In my mind, conscience is what defines humanity; everyone is born with a certain sense of justice, no matter how infantile it might be. If that is stripped away from us then, no, there is nothing to stop us doing whatever hedonism demands. But for that you give up humanity and become a biological machine. You are no longer human, as you've forsaken that which sets us apart.

 

Humans value humanity, and the thought of losing it is frightening. People are frightened of the evolution theory as it makes humanity 'less': not created by a celestial being, just another step up the Darwinian ladder. We crave individuality, revel in being 'special', and who would sacrifice such a wonderful gift as the self?

 

(Sorry if I'm not very eloquent. I've never been good at expressing myself.)

 

Oh, I think another thing to take into account is what we're defining as 'murder'. I'm trying to answer your question as if the hypothetical person was going to kill someone by their own hand, not order someone else to do it for them — that's why I'm not fond of referring to king's orders, or boss's commands.

 

When there is a big enough buffer between yourself and reality anything is easy: I have killed thousands of people across all the games I've played, but that is because they are so far removed from the real-world that it doesn't mean anything to me. I don't feel guilt because I've no reason to, because they aren't really people. But this mindset is as easily applicable to a commander pouring over a map in a military bunker as a nobody twiddling a joypad in front of their TV.

I see your point... no, a definitive answer cannot be reached, but situations such as this nevetheless provide fertile ground for a debate.

 

However, if you do constrain things such as consciences, the debate does become fairly pointless, but Haden isn't quite doing that.

 

Actually, I take issue with your assumption that humans are "a step up the evolutionary ladder"... evolution is a blind process, and has no goals, so you can't say that a human is a "better example" of evolution than an amoeba.

[Aimless]

Actually, I take issue with your assumption that humans are "a step up the evolutionary ladder"... evolution is a blind process, and has no goals, so you can't say that a human is a "better example" of evolution than an amoeba.

I didn't assume that, hence my use of raised commas around 'less'. I was just trying to add in some imagery, as writing is very boring without it.

 

Personally I would say humans are more advanced, as being a human with human values I appreciate art and creativity, two things which amoebas aren't seen to be capable of. I wouldn't necessarily say we were better, but I think it's fair to say we're a more progressive life form.

 

It's all a bit of a non-issue really, though, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. If you're really that worried about my ostensible racism towards single-cell organisms I can edit it to say "down the evolutionary ladder"...

[Supergrunch]

I didn't assume that, hence my use of raised commas around 'less'. I was just trying to add in some imagery, as writing is very boring without it.

 

Personally I would say humans are more advanced, as being a human with human values I appreciate art and creativity, two things which amoebas aren't seen to be capable of. I wouldn't necessarily say we were better, but I think it's fair to say we're a more progressive life form.

 

It's all a bit of a non-issue really, though, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. If you're really that worried about my ostensible racism towards single-cell organisms I can edit it to say "down the evolutionary ladder"...

Well the main problem is that there is no such thing as an evolutionary ladder...

 

Humans are undeniably more advanced than amoebae, but they are (arguably) no better at surviving... because evolution isn't trying to do anything, if you are judging things on evolution, things cannot be "better" or "worse".

 

But keep up the imagery... :wink:

[Haden]

Ah man Aimless. You are either a king among men or a tad naive. If you follow your conciouness to a tee then my hat goes off to you! Im literally not being sarcastic as I know I cant.

 

Macbeth while fictional really looks into the King killing phenoman wonderfully.

 

Heres a few real life ones.

 

This chaotic state of affairs would prove short-lived. Xerxes II only ruled for forty-five days. He was reportedly murdered while drunk by Pharnacyas and Menostanes on Sogdianus' orders. Sogdianus apparently gained the support of his regions. He was himself killed by Arbarios, commander of the cavalry. He had only reigned for six months and fifteen days. Darius II became the sole ruler of the Persian Empire and would reign till 404 BC.

 

Eric IX of Sweden (or Erik the Lawgiver or Erik the Saint. In Swedish he is simply known as Erik den helige or Sankt Erik which translates as Erik the Holy and Saint Erik respectively) (c. 1120 – May 18, 1160) was a Swedish king c.1150 – 1160. Eric was an Upland lord, son of a lord Jedvard (Edward), due to which contemporary sources call him also Eric Jedvardson. He was a rival king, from 1150, to Sverker the Elder who had ascended the throne c.1130 and was murdered 1156, after which Eric was recognized in most or all provinces. Eric's reign ended when he was murdered in Uppsala. He's said to have been murdered by Emund Ulvbane, an assassin who was hired by people working for the Sverker dynasty, in order for them to regain the control of the kingdom

 

Simon Maccabaeus

In February 135 BC, he was assassinated at the instigation of his son-in-law Ptolemy. Simon was followed by his third son, John Hyrcanus, whose two elder brothers, Mattathias and Judah, had been murdered, together with their father.

 

and a byzantine one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezezius

 

These men all had motives I am not denying that and bypassed their conciouness to gain power.

[Aimless]

Ah man Aimless. You are either a king among men or a tad naive. If you follow your conciouness to a tee then my hat goes off to you! Im literally not being sarcastic as I know I cant.

I don't follow my conscience, I -am- my conscience as it is me. It defines what I see as acceptable behaviour, and if I infringe upon that standard I feel guilt; if my conscience thought my actions were acceptable I wouldn't feel guilt.

 

I'm not saying everyone's a saint, but there's a big difference between, say, using up the last of the milk because you want a bigger bowl of cereal and murdering your family so they won't use your precious milk. One is the action of a slightly selfish person, the other a sociopath with no conscience to speak of.

 

These men all had motives I am not denying that and bypassed their conciouness to gain power.

But did any of them kill with their own hands, or did they order the deaths? I'm not saying the latter would be an easy thing to do, but condemning someone to death and physically murdering them are two different things. Being psychologically distanced from an action keeps the guilt at bay, the more impersonal the better — there aren't more annoying people on the internet, they're just more annoying because they think they can get away with it.

 

I simply don't think you can bypass your conscience in such serious matters as unprovoked murder. If someone goes through with the idea without any psychological ramifications then they have a dangerously underdeveloped conscience, and have shown themselves to be something subhuman — which, as I mentioned earlier, is something humans fear more than death.

[Supergrunch]

Providing people are sane, the only reason they kill someone is when the benefit of killing the person outweighs how they will feel bad doing so.

[MoogleViper]

Not quite sure that I understand the question so bear with me if I am off track.

 

I am atheist but that doesn't mean that I have no morals. (not having a go at you haden just clearing it up) I just feel that my morals are not to gain a better afterlife but to have a more enjoyable life for me and for others.

 

As for the killing thing, I don't think that morals are a genetic code or something we are told to follow. I believe morals are things that "you" feel is right and wrong. These differ with each person but society has developed to a place where a lot of morals are similar.

 

Therefore I feel that you couldn't kill for gain because you would be stopped by yourself. As for the "having no morals" thing I can't really answer that as I can't imagine it.

 

Sorry if that doesn't answer your question.