a candid conversation
for this to make sense, you’ll probably need to go watch the video in the previous post. i had the following conversation with a fellow youtube commenter about the video. it’s a little long and rambling, but i tried to bring it home at the end, and i post it here for your edification and encouragement.
dailey
the very last line of the film was, “a more thoughtful argument is to assess your actions and if you think they will increase the standard of living and the happiness of society.” i guess my question would be “why?” if you can oppress everyone around you and live like a king all of your days, then why try to benefit society. even if your actions lead to the decline of society, what does it matter if you won’t even be around to see it anyway?
sasirut
Because you can read history. And history shows that tyrants will always go down violently. So the choice is: Live in peace or die in pieces.
dailey
yeah, but i guess i’m not just limiting it to violent oppression. our american corporatism is an oppression of sorts, what with the banksters making millions off the backs of others. and even when it does come time to pay the piper, the gov’t bailed them out. so, if they can do it, and get away with it until they die, why not?
sasirut
Well first of all, why did the gov bail them out? For the good of the bankers? I doubt it. Rather: For the good (jobs) of the people. “get away with it until they die” or longer… You’re talking about judgement I guess?
(*this is a side not from dailey; regardless of why the gov’t bailed out the bankers, they still were bailed out and got away with it.)
But yes, why not do it? Because it is a deeply immoral act, it doesn’t benefit society. And what you want (I hope) is for your children to be all right, isn’t it? Well if you destroy the world they live in by actions which harm society but are beneficial to you, then your kids will live in a world that is worse off than before or at least not significantly better.
And yes, I do think that something as simple as “making millions off the backs of others” for the sole purpose of having the money for yourself is bad for society.
dailey
yeah, i do want a good society for my kids. but some people don’t some people don’t care. and you’re right, it is immoral, but according to what standard? a common decency we expect everyone to have? we’ve already established that said individual doesn’t, for what ever reason, possess this common decency. so on what authority do we say to them, “your anti-societal decisions are immoral!?” why should they care what society thinks? in other words, what will make them listen?
dailey
absolute morals (8:42) may not be dispensed with, even if it meant certain death. many Christians believing in the afterlife spent in heaven would opt rather to starve than to engage in murder to preserve themselves. it’s sort of why martyrs opted to be burned rather than recant. regardless of whether you think it was stupid of them, it does cast serious doubt on this; “absolute morality evaporates quick enough when certain individuals are removed from the opulent luxury of a modern society.”
sasirut
I’ll start with the: What standart
The standart of a surviving civilization.
what authority: That of the surviving civilization.
Why should they care: They might get punished (jail, fine)
what will make them listen: reason
To your second post: Christians obtain their morals from scripture, that’s why moral fails on them. That’s why they have absolute morals which are detrimental in THIS life. They only choose them because of the “next life”.
dailey
detrimental or beneficial, successful or not is not the point i’m making. the point i am making is that to try to prove that morals are necessarily plastic by stating, “absolute morality evaporates quick enough when certain individuals are removed from the opulent luxury of a modern society” is fallacious. some individuals hold to rigid morals, even in the face of death, as evidenced by the martyrs.
dailey
so, would you assert that anything that promotes a surviving civilization is right, and anything that destroys civilization is evil? what is the importance of a surviving civilization? what value does a surviving civilization add to the universe? do we have a purpose? if no, why does it matter if we survive or not? if yes, what is our purpose and who assigns it to us? do we assign ourselves purpose? if so, then don’t we create our own morality? and if so, why should we care about the morality that a surviving civilization seeks to impose on us as self-actualized individuals?
sasirut
I will label my answers 1) to x) as a response to your questions.
1)No, not quite. The standard of living has to be raised for the next generation too.
2)Nothing, but then, what DOES have an ultimate purpose? Exactly, nothing does. This is a Universe which doesn’t care about us, it is harsh and cruel. So we have to give it purpose. If your purpose is to gain as much money as possible then again, it is evil considered on a scale of civilizations.
3)None.
4)No.
5)It doesn’t. Go hang yourself in a tree and it wouldn’t matter. But this is the one life we have and I choose to savour it. I give my life meaning by doing things that increase the knowledge and standard of living of mankind, because I want my children to have a better world than the one we currently have. I will also of course live my life, enjoy the moments. What makes me get up in the morning? The thought of a good breakfast and a smile from my baby brother. In the near future maybe a kiss from my girlfriend. And later still a hug from my children.
6)Yes, we have to assign purpose. As TF points out in another video, since this life is finite, we can give our life meaning. In an infinite life (afterlife) there can be no meaning to it, as we always have eternity left.
7)Yes, on a small scale we do. On a large scale (killing others) we are pretty much hardwired*, as TF points out. On a small scale (Is it OK to lie?) we make our own decisions.
8)Again, because helping the society is mostly considered good and doing the contrary is often considered bad and more often than not you will be punished here and now for that. If you have a finite life, you don’t want to spend a significant (and not even an insignificant) proportion of it in jail. So you are doing yourself good by doing society good.
Now I will return to the morals: (Fundamental) Christians judge their morals against an after-life in which they will be rewarded by „how well they’ve followed the bible. Non-fundies (including people who are NOT martyrs, etc.) judge their morals against a „how much good does it do to other people standard. So yes, if you impose a sufficiently big reward (mortals + greed = immortality) then morals will be chucked aside easily. However, when you take sane people, they will more often than not judge their morals against a „how much good does it do to other people standard and were back to exactly what TF said: Absolute morality evaporates quick enough when certain individuals are removed from the opulent luxury of a modern society.
Also, invite you to join http://www.arrogantatheist.com/forum/ where I am know under the name of Inferno.
(*another side note from dailey; hardwired, yes. but by the universe? and why? so that we can survive? we’ve already established that there’s no point in our survival, so why would the universe or evolution need to insure it?)
dailey
hey well, thanks for your candid responses and honest conversation. i would also be inclined to take your position, were it not for God working personally in my heart. i do know that i know him personally. and you and i both know that i can’t prove God’s existence by material means, nor can you disprove it. we can analyze a body of physical evidence and say it points to one conclusion or the other, but it will not be sufficient for absolute proof of a spiritual God. logic gets you so far. there are certain assumptions and decisions based on faith that either side must make. on the other hand if your god is an apple computer, his existence can be proven quite simply.
i can tell you, that i personally do not perform my moral duties out of seeking certain rewards in the afterlife nor really out of how much good it does for other people (though it is important to do good to others). i know very well that i fall miserably short of the standards set forth in the Bible, and i do not follow it very well at all. i’m a liar, a pervert, a whore in my heart and i know it. but Jesus Christ has purchased my redemption, and clothed me in his righteousness to stand before God. so, i do my moral duties, feeble attempts as they are, out of gratitude and love for Christ, and with great joy, for this work that is already done on my behalf. and though i’m sure you’ve heard this before, i do invite you again to trust Christ as savior. i don’t need you to, and God doesn’t need you to, but you need you to.
i’ll stop by arrogantathiest.com sometime and check it out. and i promise to keep it civil. i find athiests and christians to both be sufficiently stupid often enough.
you fellow man,
dailey crafton
