h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The rules of morality tend to be made by our society or an influential social group. They may based on religion or agreement after discussion. In that way it's rather like law except that the moral rules tend to attract praise or blame rather than reward or punishment. Clearly these won't necessarily be the best possible rules.

Ethics is the study of what moral rules should ideally be based on. It might be fairness, the golden rule, avoiding harming people needlessly, doing ones duty etc. We may have to choose between these principles, since they won't always give the same answer. If we make a promise, it is our duty to keep it, but we may find out that keeping it will cause great harm to someone.

I don't think rules can ever be made to suit and help everyone. Some of the ones we have suit the majority of people. I think that they're similar to those 'one size fits all' clothes - extreme values etc won't fit into it.

Toxx - agree with you, doing something as duty may harm others. Troops leaving England are doing their duty, but are going out to cause harm to people (well, hopefully not, but its starting to look that way). Just as the firefighters kept their promise to the union, causing the navy/raf to go and be firemen. Everyone is the giver and receiver of harm, bad feelings etc. But wouldn't be good if everyone could get equal amounts of the both of them. Maybe thats what rules should be for...

Jordan - sending a lot of sympathy your way...

I held a simular arguement to this the other day, "what happens when you die?". i myself belief you dropdown dead, end of story, my friend however believes something "spiritual" occurs. we argued for hours. "Why live if theres nothing after it all?", "For living itself", "there has to be something more", "Why should there be? people only believe stuff like that because they cant handle the truth". These kinds of arguements or disscusions can go on forever and never reach an agreeable conclusion. However i would just like to say the same thing i said in the Life after Death discussion i had. People only believe in these things if they cant handle the truth, the human brain simply hasnt evolved to accept that there is no great being living on a cloud (that looks like one of us only with a nice big silver beard) and that you dont go to some wonderful place when you die, but thats fine. In my view religion is a set up to keep humans saine and happy, and without it a great percentage of the population would be lost.

I think shark may have posted to the wrong conversation. Or may be discussing something posted earlier. Easy enough mistake.

I've been wondering - should we keep promises if they will hurt someone else? Perhaps there's more to it than that. I don't think I could keep my word if I suddenly discovered that, in doing so, someone was going to die from it. (For example, though less severe consequences also count...)

- Jordan

Why can't some one live by the laws in a religoius book. Like In the Quran. I mean the law system we use to day defines right and wrong but it is still laws written in the book and the worst part is that it is Human opinion on it not God's orders. Thats why law veries from country to country. Er sorry I'm not sure if I am answering some one from in this Forum or some one else as I'm to tired (lazy) to back search till I find it.

Adib

That's what practical moral reasoning is all about, Jordan: balancing conflicting goods/evils against each other. Indeed it's because we humans have conflicting motives (individually as well as collectively) that ethics develops in the first place.

Noggin

We can't live by the laws in a religious book. Humankind has shown this repeatedly... different factions of a religion supposedly based on the same laws, wiping each other out. You answered your own question with the idea of human opinion. Also we are not all of the same religion- obviously; I do not know the Quran but there are plenty of Biblical 'laws' I would happily ditch. Then there is the question of whether they are 'laws' and should be followed to the letter, or just advice but not essential. Factions and schisms all over again.
Also, even if these rules were standardised they would not suffice since as Hass. and others have shown morality/conscience is subjective.

katybobs: I have beliefs but it's not a religion. I got there myself without any help from truth-clouding organisations I do not think everyone who believes something instead of nothing is that weak. It is far too complicated to diss with that one idea. Works for you maybe, however the rest of us generally have thought very hard about it. Not scared of your truth, just unsatisfied with it.

Yes, Katybobs, I agree with Mandragora and her comments about your posting. Most people who believe in God and/or an afterlife don't have any ideas about a man in a long white beard, living on a cloud! There is a lot of evidence in favour of 'spiritual things', as Hasslefree will no doubt be able to tell you - it's her area...but NDEs are supported by science, and there is no convincing argument against them.

Muzaakboy, re living by rules in a book - many or most people find that an unsatisfactory answer. In my view (and in my religion) it's about a relationship with God - not about rules at all, though once you have the relationship, following rules and using 'a book' as a guide, works pretty well. It is my perception that most of the rules were devised to enable society to function - and don't forget that Jesus' new commandment was simply all about loving one another, as the supreme value!

I thoroughly agree with Mandragora, following set rules is easy
like going for a driving test

Finding my own personal truth is difficult because I have to analyse my personal values with my subconscious and avoid rationalising to get where my selfish expectations lie.

To me this determines my behaviour according to my own personal "GOOD" not God. I am prepared to answer to my beliefs (behaviour) in front of any other God. If I'm wrong, let me "burn".

What most people do not realize is that reality, as we experience it, is not something that just happens to us, but that it is something we construct. There is an objective reality, but it is not something we can experience. There is too much of it. There are infinitely many things happening around us, none of which have any meaning outside of that which we assign it. We have to filter out tiny pieces of this reality - first by physical selection, by seeing only that which is visible, or hearing that which is audible, then by biological processes and finally by cultural and personal preferences. In a sense, you can only hear what you want to hear - the things you don't think are important, or that you don't believe, YOU WILL NOT PAY ATTENTION TO.

Our culture plays a very large part in our construction of reality. Our culture comes from the people around us. We tend to associate with those who believe and feel as we do. I do not believe that there is any "normal" reality, only an average one.
The meaning of a fulfilled life must be to learn to construct a better reality, and to keep hold of it even as the forces of one's own feelings struggle to overturn it.
If a God is part of a persons construct, then God does exits and so be it.

Hi Katybobs ,

"People only believe in these things if they can't handle the truth"

And what, pray, is the truth? What hard, objective evidence do you have that your perception of reality is more valid than any other?

Come on Katybobs are you really one of those who believe that we are merely electrically-stimulated, perambulating bags of chemicals whose only purpose is to eat, breed and die? It would be unutterably sad if you were, for a life without purpose is a wasted life.

I think that you will find, if you choose to sample the backlog of posts (no-one expects you to read all 5,000 ), that nobody on the 'religious' side of the debate here actually believes in the old man on a cloud fallacy (except perhaps Justin, but that is another story....).

Many of us here believe that there is a purpose to existence and one of our most hotly debated topics is the nature of that purpose.

I look forward to your continued contributin to this seminal debate.

Blessings,
Matholwch the Apostate /|\.

"Come on Katybobs are you really one of those who believe that we are merely electrically-stimulated, perambulating bags of chemicals whose only purpose is to eat, breed and die?"
What the hell is that supposed to mean? You put it like it's the most disgustingly absurd theory anyone's ever suggested. As Katybobs said, people who share his way of thinking believe that the only real purpose in life is to live "for the living". Saying that his perception is "unutterably sad" and will cause him to lead "a wasted life" is just pointless - especially since you don't give any evidence to support your apparently unshakeable conviction that we are more than electrically-stimulated, perambulating bags of chemicals. Obviously everyone here has widely varying opinions but to me a post which condemns another's beliefs as ridiculous and sad simply because you don't like the sound of them seems totally pointless.

There are undoubtedly things in this world, or universe, that we don't know about. We are ignorant about everything really so anything we come up with is in the end basically meaningless as it only applies to us and is only right for us. I believe God was our invention...therefore he's not real.

...isn't that kind of what Katybobs was saying, though? i.e. we only believe more than he/she/it/they because we have some kind of fear of reality?
denigrating others' beliefs only on the grounds that they do not suit *you* is shoddy.

Hass

Hi Euro. Money was our invention too. Since that means it ain't real, please send me all yours!

Hi Gaffer .

Aah, I see, but its alright for katybobs to accuse people of like me of not being able to handle the truth, inferring that we are in some way deluded or stupid. Hmm, interestingly edited response there Gaffer.

It is always difficult for people to jump right into a debate that has gone on for almost 5,000 posts. Much of the 'evidence' you would like me to refer to is contained there, often a great length. However, most of my 'evidence' is based upon personal experience and is therefore open to the accusation of subjectivity.

I have also never claimed that my convictions are either unshakeable or indeed right, only that they are mine and based upon my experiences.

I do believe strongly though that a life without some purpose is wasted. If my rationalist friends are right and you only get one bite of the cherry then surely it is better for that individual, and society as a whole, if their life is led with purpose and direction? If I am right and there is some higher purpose to our existence then my argument still stands. However, I don't attempt to direct a person to a particular purpose or 'theology', unlike some that do. I believe that each of us must discover or create that purpose ourselves.

Each of us is gifted (or born) with a huge amount of potential. Any one of us could become the next Mozart, Shakespeare or Brunel. As a minimum we could lead long and fruitful lives, enhancing the world and society around us.

It is tragic that so many people are unable to do so because of the accident of the place of their birth or other circumstances. It is unutterably tragic when an obviously intelligent person, as katybobs appears to be, should be subject to the negative and depressing philosophy of no-purpose brigade.

So you can see that it is not the 'sound of her beliefs' that moves me. Nor have I 'condemned' or 'ridiculed' her. Rather I am motivated by a real concern that this whole philosophy of the no-purpose brigade is actively limiting our growth as individuals and as a species.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Oh come on, Gaffer! The most negative term Math uses is 'merely'. The rest of what he says in his post is descriptive and pretty accurate. I don't see how you can build that up to the equivalent of 'disgustingly absurd'. Fair enough, I can see that that is what life might well be to some - but it's your take on it.

Well see money is a complete illusion. It's only worth anything because we all subscribe to the belief that it is worth what we say it's worth. A £5 note is actually a piece of paper with various things printed on it. Unfortunately the illusion doesn't even exist for me cos I'm a student with no dosh!

But Katybobs theory is that we should live this life here and now because to await a heaven after death is wasteful.
The only problem I feel about her post is the feeling we should all subscribe to this idea ( which it is ) just as everyone elses beliefs about the unknown are their ideas.
The problem I have with her idea is that it is either one thing or the other.
Belief in god - waste your life
Do not believe in God and enjoy life to the full.
Obvioulsy Katybobs has formed this from her experiences of people who believe in God, that is they are miserable souls awaiting the peace of death and all people who do not believe in god are happy as larks.
From my prospective this is not real and it is possible to both believe in God/god and still make the most of the life you currently own.
From my own experience I find that those who do not believe in a higher power, tend to rely on other things to make their lives tolerable, which tend, ultimately, to let them down.

Europeep
We also invented the steam engine. amongst other things.
In fact look at anything around you now and somebody invented it.
Does to invent something give evidence of non existance?