|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 07/23/2009 : 19:56:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Evidence?
I'd be interested to see something that showed the % of atheists in prison and contrasted it to the % in the normal population. |
Adherents.com has some data, but they're looking at it from the perspective of whether religiosity increases or decreases criminality.
But basically, the data they provide says that atheists make up 0.5% of the general population (circa 1990!), but only 0.209% of the Federal prison population (1997). The author(s) try to patch up this disparity in part by arguing about how the relatively huge percentage of prisoners who didn't answer the religion question in surveys (20%+) might have answered. And the author(s) go to great lengths discussing "functional" theism (based on regular practice or church-going), which if applied consistently, would make 70-75% of the total US population atheists, and 67% of the prison population atheists (so that doesn't negate the hypothesis - "functional" atheism is underrepresented in prisons, just like "propositional" atheism is).
There's also a large section on how the terms "theist" and "atheist" are sociologically meaningless, because they don't describe groups with any common behaviors. But again, that's in regards to the "theists commit fewer crimes" argument, and not applicable to the simple observation of a difference in the groups' prison demographics when compared to the whole population. In other words, by saying "there are fewer atheists in prison," I'm not implying that atheism leads to living a more-moral life.
Especially because of one other thing the author(s) note: there are religious groups which specifically target prisoners for conversion after incarceration. Listed are Muslims, Nation of Islam, "Moorish" (sic) and Scientology (how those guys expect to get tens of thousands of bucks out of prisoners, I don't know). Surprisingly (to me), the author(s) don't make as big a deal out of this as their other arguments. I fully expected to find a version of the "there are no atheists in foxholes" argument coupled with the existence of the recruitment groups to explain away the differences in the data. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Baxter
Skeptic Friend
USA
131 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2009 : 07:29:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The very fact that there are "grey areas" should be indicative that boundries are not set, not absolute. |
It means that we can't attain the absolute. Different groups of people have different ways of expressing it and striving for it, or even getting around it, etc. But the absolutes--loyalty, kindness, fairness, etc. are still there (essentially the golden rule).
Originally posted by Dave W.
Consider the case where the premarital sex occurs between two people who have every intention of getting married. There's no loyalty or fidelity question involved, but many Christians would find it sinful.
Besides, if it becomes a loyalty question, then there is a huge moral issue for having sex with one's spouse, since it's possible that a divorce will occur and then a re-marriage. Within-marriage sex the first time would then be being unfaithful to one's second spouse. (And divorce is only frowned upon by Catholics. Southern Protestant ministers have just as high a divorce rate as the general population.)
|
These intricacies can complicate matters, but they're still people's interpretations of an ideal that exists.
I fail to see how we can make moral judgments at all if they're only subjective. What right do we have to judge another culture or society or person or opinion? When we say that a society has morally progressed, we do so because that society has moved closer to a moral ideal. To me all of this indicates an objective moral order, not subjective.
|
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2009 : 07:41:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
I fail to see how we can make moral judgments at all if they're only subjective. |
I watched Transformers 2 last night. My judgement is that it was terrible. That's also subjective, obviously. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2009 : 08:39:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
These intricacies can complicate matters, but they're still people's interpretations of an ideal that exists. |
No, you're just asserting that such an ideal exists objectively, you're not demonstrating that one really does.| I fail to see how we can make moral judgments at all if they're only subjective. |
Perhaps you fail to grasp what a "moral judgement" is. Each person has, in his or her head, a set of standards by which he/she thinks people should act. When those standards (whatever they are) are not met, we see a moral failure. It is the source of those standards that you are claiming is "objective," but you've presented no evidence at all that they are.| What right do we have to judge another culture or society or person or opinion? |
Your question includes a moral judgement within it: that judging others without the "right" to do so is morally unacceptable. On what basis do you make such a moral judgement?| When we say that a society has morally progressed, we do so because that society has moved closer to a moral ideal. |
No, we do so because they've moved closer to whatever our ideal happens to be at the time. 300 years ago, if people could look forward to America today, the average Joe would likely think we're rampant hedonists without a shred of shame or decency. Our clothes are immodest; our entertainment disgusting; our interbreeding sickening.| To me all of this indicates an objective moral order, not subjective. |
And I don't see how you can conclude that in the face of all the evidence that morality changes with time and geography. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2009 : 13:31:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
It is the source of those standards that you are claiming is "objective," but you've presented no evidence at all that they are. |
Indeed. And here lies the biggest problem for those who claim to have objective morals. They claim that there ARE objective morals but they have no objective means to verify what these actually are or even that any of them exist at all. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Baxter
Skeptic Friend
USA
131 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2009 : 12:16:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by Baxter
I fail to see how we can make moral judgments at all if they're only subjective. |
I watched Transformers 2 last night. My judgement is that it was terrible. That's also subjective, obviously.
|
Yeah, I screwed up that sentence… “They're” was meant to refer to absolutes, not the judgments. I meant to say that if there is no objective moral standard, I don't see how we can make any moral judgments. I agree that our judgments are subjective. I just think that they are based on things that are objective.
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, you're just asserting that such an ideal exists objectively, you're not demonstrating that one really does. |
I think that the golden rule exists (in the way that love exists), and I think it is objective, yes. It is also objective in the sense that it is universal. A couple of people here have mentioned empathy, and that sounds like a good source for the rule. And from the golden rule I think that further ideas of morality spring forth, such as mentioned before, loyalty, kindness, fairness, equality, charity, etc.
| Perhaps you fail to grasp what a "moral judgment" is. Each person has, in his or her head, a set of standards by which he/she thinks people should act. When those standards (whatever they are) are not met, we see a moral failure. It is the source of those standards that you are claiming is "objective," but you've presented no evidence at all that they are. |
It's universal to condemn acts of cowardice and praise acts of love, and yes, it's our moral judgments that determine for us what acts would fit into what category. But the categories themselves are objective. Our judgments are subjective, not the idea of cowardice and love.
| Your question includes a moral judgement within it: that judging others without the "right" to do so is morally unacceptable. On what basis do you make such a moral judgement? |
I make it on the basis of the golden rule! I make the subjective judgment (that it is morally unacceptable) because it is a violation of the objective golden rule. If the rule itself is subjective, then I have no basis for that judgment.
| No, we do so because they've moved closer to whatever our ideal happens to be at the time. 300 years ago, if people could look forward to America today, the average Joe would likely think we're rampant hedonists without a shred of shame or decency. Our clothes are immodest; our entertainment disgusting; our interbreeding sickening. |
I understand that people change in their opinions of what behaviors they see as immoral (or to what extent). However, if the golden rule was entirely subjective, then we'd see plenty of people praising murder and evil and condemning love and goodness. What we find are some people supporting acts of murder by justifying it. The Nazis supported murdering Jews (among others), but not murder in and of itself. They tried to justify it rather than to claim that murder and evil are inherently good things.
|
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2009 : 12:38:55 [Permalink]
|
| Sorry but the Golden Rule is NOT universal, it is applied only to those within your own community. History has shown that virtually every society demonizes those unlike them in one or many ways, which leads to the justification of atrocities. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2009 : 12:39:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
I understand that people change in their opinions of what behaviors they see as immoral (or to what extent). However, if the golden rule was entirely subjective, then we'd see plenty of people praising murder and evil and condemning love and goodness. What we find are some people supporting acts of murder by justifying it. The Nazis supported murdering Jews (among others), but not murder in and of itself. They tried to justify it rather than to claim that murder and evil are inherently good things. |
I see what you're saying here, but I still don't think that translates into the idea that morals are objective. Morals are subjective, but they still all fall within a certain range. Subjective does not mean "anything goes." Think of morals like tastes. I think mushrooms taste terrible. Others think they taste wonderful. Obviously taste is subjective. However, that doesn't mean that some people like the taste of warm vomit. It's subjective within a finite range of possibilities. It's the same with morals. Are they entirely subjective? Obviously not. But there exists a degree of variability to that precludes total objectiveness.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2009 : 15:08:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
I think that the golden rule exists (in the way that love exists), and I think it is objective, yes. It is also objective in the sense that it is universal. |
Well, the Golden Rule and love both exist objectively and universally as ideas, but so does the idea of 7. That's all trivially true, so the real question is whether everyone uses the Golden Rule (or something like it) as a basis for their morality, and the answer seems to be "no."| A couple of people here have mentioned empathy, and that sounds like a good source for the rule. |
It's the only source for it, and a few people (sociopaths) lack empathy (and a great many more lack empathy regarding certain feelings). The assumption in the Golden Rule is that happiness is something to value and expand within the world, but not everyone shares that assumption.| And from the golden rule I think that further ideas of morality spring forth, such as mentioned before, loyalty, kindness, fairness, equality, charity, etc. |
Yes, you can build a full and complex morality starting with just the Golden Rule, but that doesn't mean that you should. Why should human happiness be something to strive for? Is there some empirical data out there which says that all of humanity is somehow "better" if we are all happier? How do we even begin to measure that, so that we can tell "better" and "worse?" Is there some objective means of doing so?| It's universal to condemn acts of cowardice and praise acts of love, and yes, it's our moral judgments that determine for us what acts would fit into what category. But the categories themselves are objective. Our judgments are subjective, not the idea of cowardice and love. |
Universal? So the French Resistance fighters condemned their own acts of murder of their Nazi occupiers?| Your question includes a moral judgement within it: that judging others without the "right" to do so is morally unacceptable. On what basis do you make such a moral judgement? |
I make it on the basis of the golden rule! I make the subjective judgment (that it is morally unacceptable) because it is a violation of the objective golden rule. If the rule itself is subjective, then I have no basis for that judgment. |
No, it's not that you'd have no basis, it's that you'd have a subjective basis.
That's obviously the problem here: you're thinking that a subjective basis for morality is the same as no basis whatsoever.| I understand that people change in their opinions of what behaviors they see as immoral (or to what extent). However, if the golden rule was entirely subjective, then we'd see plenty of people praising murder and evil and condemning love and goodness. What we find are some people supporting acts of murder by justifying it. The Nazis supported murdering Jews (among others), but not murder in and of itself. They tried to justify it rather than to claim that murder and evil are inherently good things. |
So again: the French Resistance also simply justified their own murders of the Nazis? But the words you're using are so nebulous. You're talking about "goodness" as if it were unive |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2009 : 16:43:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
That's obviously the problem here: you're thinking that a subjective basis for morality is the same as no basis whatsoever. |
^^This.
For some reason, whenever a lot of people hear the phrase "morality is subjective" it translates in their brain as "there is no such thing as morality." Baxter appears to be falling into the same trap.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2009 : 18:10:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
For some reason, whenever a lot of people hear the phrase "morality is subjective" it translates in their brain as "there is no such thing as morality." Baxter appears to be falling into the same trap. |
Yeah, I don't get it, either. Baxter brings up love, but except for some extreme circumstances, how much someone loves something or someone isn't objectively verifiable in any way, we instead must rely on subjective reports (other than the occasional "you've got a funny way of showing it"). This doesn't, in any way, invalidate it.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2009 : 19:25:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yeah, I don't get it, either. |
I think it's because people take the word "subjective" to mean every person's opinion is as valid as any other's. But that's not necessarily true. Subjectivity doesn't rule out the potential for consensus. For example, it's true that taste in music is subjective. However, it's also true to say that Mozart is considered one of the greatest composers who ever lived. Does that mean every single person ever born enjoyed Mozart's compositions? No, of course not. But the consensus is that he was a great composer, and the contrary opinion that Mozart was a third-rate hack isn't given much credence. That's essentially my view of how morality works. Sociopaths might think murder is fine, but they're overruled by the rest of us.
The problem with thinking of morality in these terms of majority opinion is that it leads to the unsettling conclusion that morality is subject to the whims of the masses--a repugnant idea for many of us. For instance, would killing babies still be immoral if you lived in ancient Sparta? Obviously moral objectivists like Baxter would answer yes, killing babies is always wrong no matter what society says, and so this points to the existence of an objective moral law. Of course an objectivist couldn't say with any certainty that they would still feel this way if they were actually raised and had their ideas of morality formed in ancient Sparta, in which case they would probably see infanticide as a moral duty.
And therein lies the problem. Moral objectivists aren't actually arguing from the facts or about what we know to be true in reality. (That morals do change over time. Infanticide and human sacrifice has been practiced by societies. Etc.) Rather, they are making an emotional argument about what they want to be true. Because if morals are subjective, then that means we have the potential to "go backwards" and become like savages again. It's a scary thought...so scary that some people instinctively reject the possibility outright. That just can't be true.
But the idea of consensus ameliorates that concern to a large extent. I think the trend over time has been for moral systems to be continually revised to consider the most good for the most people, and the inertia inherent in consensus means that slow-but-steady direction will likely hold for a long time to come. The bad part about inertia is oftentimes change doesn't come quickly enough, as in the case with acceptance of homosexuality.
There's also, I think, a profound sense that one's individuals sense of morality transcends culture, which can lead people to think there must be some moral absolute at work. "I would feel this way even if everyone was against me!" But that still largely ignores the question of why individuals adopt the specific morals they do, which is usually a heady mix of culture, upbringing, personal experience, evolutionary predisposition and brain chemistry.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/31/2009 19:35:47 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2009 : 22:55:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Obviously moral objectivists like Baxter would answer yes, killing babies is always wrong no matter what society says, and so this points to the existence of an objective moral law. Of course an objectivist couldn't say with any certainty that they would still feel this way if they were actually raised and had their ideas of morality formed in ancient Sparta, in which case they would probably see infanticide as a moral duty. |
I wonder how many of the objectivists think that everyone who commits some bad act and who isn't psychopathic must feel guilt. As if Hitler were sitting in his bunker saying, "well, I didn't want to do it, but I really had no choice. This guilt I'll never erase, but the human race will be better off." So the Spartans, undoubtedly, were all wracked with heartbreak over the sick peer-pressure they were under to slaughter their own babies. Maybe.| I think the trend over time has been for moral systems to be continually revised to consider the most good for the most people... |
Well, that's the problem. If a moral system has no absolute basis against which to measure "goodness," then the phrase "the most good" doesn't mean much, does it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2009 : 07:34:03 [Permalink]
|
The thing that confuses many people is that you can make objective moral decisions within a specific context (your own pre-defined parameters of good and bad). But what is good and what is bad are entirely subjective.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Moral absolutes?
