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

Sorry Turnsup, they don't pick quotes of the day from this eminently quotable thread - I think they're afraid of pointing newcomers to these ill-tempered shores. Or perhaps it's divine retribution?

Gif

Gif, if there was such a thing as divine retribution, I'd be fried by now. Or, maybe vengeance is a dish best served when I'm cold.

Divine retribution is what happened to Hugh Grant, wasn't it?

Gif

No seriously, screw morals.

You might aswell go round deciding what's right or wrong based on the toss of a coin. Damn Im not even sureif thereis such a thing as right and wrong. As for good and evil...dont get me started!

For the best results we need to decide what "we" want to happen and find the most sustainable way of brining it about.

Nomorals required just risk assessmnet and cost benefit analysis.

Greed tempered against fear of our neighbours clubbing us to get resources they want to promotes sharing or if youare minded grabbbing all the resources you can to make stuff to kill your neighbours. This may lead you to worry that your neighbours might try the same plan so you may want to go for sharing and co-operation.

I dont need any moral codes to tell me about the dangers and benefits inherent in any outcomes Ihave the intelligence to think about.

She certainly blew his chances for a clean reputation.

Hugh's career was slipping; give him a break! He was just trying to get a little ahead.

On the whole, I agree with your position, Blick.

I believe that you're right...as far as the genesis (and I use the word non-biblically) of morality is concerned. I think that morals were actually developed as a pragmatic tool for the furtherance of civilisation by preserving the interests of the people who make up society.

That said, I can't agree that all moral decisions are or ought to be a simple (or complicated) cost-benefit analyses combined with forward looking risk analysis. That's part of it, certainly. But there has to be a lot more to it.

If that were the end of it, there would be nothing immoral about raping or torturing and murdering a child if the child was unwanted, you enjoyed it, and you were assured that you'd escape punishment. Surely some non-pragmatic assessment must be included in the calculus.

We KNOW that would be wrong (and let's not do good v. evil, I agree), but not on the basis of the criteria you propose. Most of us KNOW that. It's for the people who are morally challenged or unable to discern the wrong in those actions that artificial "thou shall nots" had to be formulated.

Essentially the "moral codes" imposed by religions were for people who were sufficiently amoral or so stupid they needed to have the rules written down. It saved them the trouble of making moral decisions. No thinking required.

The tradition continues to this day.

I just finished reading Franz de Waals' book 'Our Inner Ape'

The theme is the highly developed morality of chimpanzees. Being social animals they have all sorts of ways to smooth the friction of living together. I recommend the bonobo version.

They can't think about what they are doing and they can't talk about it so it must be something that evolved.

"That said, I can't agree that all moral decisions are or ought to be a simple (or complicated) cost-benefit analyses combined with forward looking risk analysis. That's part of it, certainly. But there has to be a lot more to it.

I hate should/should not and *has* to be just as much as I hate "because it is"

I trust you arent saying this in the usual way I come across such imperatives that people use assuming that using the word is enough to prove the validity of the statement it preceeds.

I dont think there needs to be any more to it.

"If that were the end of it, there would be nothing immoral about raping or torturing and murdering a child if the child was unwanted, you enjoyed it, and you were assured that you'd escape punishment. Surely some non-pragmatic assessment must be included in the calculus.

Well Im not taken with morality anyway but I can see and feel personally that causing another human such harm when they arent threatning me is a cost not worth the pleasure I might derive from the action. I dont need morals to experience empathy. Even before I go doing such things I remember how simple things like not sharing toys and having others upset by my actions gave me a negative feeling not outweighed by the pleasureof havingall the toys at my disposal.



"We KNOW that would be wrong (and let's not do good v. evil, I agree), but not on the basis of the criteria you propose. Most of us KNOW that. It's for the people who are morally challenged or unable to discern the wrong in those actions that artificial "thou shall nots" had to be formulated.

Wrong, even people who dont see the point or reason for laws follow them if they have too much to lose by breaking them and getting caught or dealing with the more immediate consequences. Eg. I dont do drugs anymore not because of the law but because they would have too much of a negative impact on my life, the morals of drug taking have not bothered me since I first encountered the unspeakable delights off getting right off my head.



"Essentially the "moral codes" imposed by religions were for people who were sufficiently amoral or so stupid they needed to have the rules written down. It saved them the trouble of making moral decisions. No thinking required.

Most people cast as amoral I dont find to be so, they do follow codes that are comparable though markedly different. The more hardened the criminal the less likely they are to do the worst thing possible, to their minds at least, and snitch on a fellow criminal. Not caring about losing their liberty and any sense of stature in the wider world matters not but losing their *good* name in the circles they move matters to them.

The codifying of moral rules was possible more an attempt by one set of people to impose their mores on everyone because it suited themto do things that way. I cant deny that there are some who through laziness or lack of capability dontthink about the ramifications of their actions and simply follow the rules as instructed because its easier/all they are capable of. Still the fact remains that I have never seen a moral code which did not favour or reinforce the customs and wants of those who claimed that the bigG had given it o them to pass on to the rest of us saps who would all be doing things horribly wrong without their instructions.



"The tradition continues to this day.

Yes it does but we cant erradicate religion without first enableing both in terms of confidence and ability people to thnk for themselves. If one religion is pushed aside people who are emotional enough to cling to one will just cling to the next nearest.

Morals are not set in stone they vary from place to place because life in different places works differently. This shows we have adaptive minds but morals sujest that womething is wrong or right regardless of our changes in thought brought about by new situations or new information.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=H7I-NZ88-i8&NR=1

He sounds so sad.

More like the Testimony of someone whose life was pretty screwed up and became a Christian because it gave some sort of support/person watching over them/alternative to fill his life.

It's such a common story and it obviously works. It certainly doesn't mean a god exists but shows how believing in something like a god can help one though bad times and change one's life.

"Believing in God can help one though bad times and change one's life."

Quite so.

I admit I amended what you said slightly.
What you say is right: Jesus said it's not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.

Jesus came to help those who needed help.
Furthermore, in order to be a Christian you have to admit that you've sinned.

You can't be a Christian and claim to be innocent of sin.

I don't claim to be a Christian and think sin is a bit of circular logic, quiet easy to deny if you don't believe in gods or supernatural entities.

I don't know about sin being circular logic.

However, I'd agree that if you don't believe in God it might not mean a lot to you. Nevertheless, sin is a reality. We see its effects every day.

Sin

noun
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law : a sin in the eyes of God

&etc



Does this not seem just a little bit circular?

You may claim sin is a reality, but since it presupposes a divinity against which to transgress, the argument becomes as circular as that which claims the Bible is God's word, because it says so.

There is much pain and suffering in the world, and what some would call evil, but there is as much evidence for the existence of sin as there is for any other supernatural power, such as spirits, gods, or demons, which is to say; none whatsoever.

Precisely my point Taliesin.

'sin is a reality. We see its effects every day.'


For example? (please offer an example of an effect which has no cause other than this 'sin' of which you speak.)


If sin is a reality, in any meaningful sense of the word reality, is it possible, in principal, to construct a physical device which would detect -- oh, never mind.