• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

No such thing as moral or immoral behavior. Only civilized and uncivilized behavior

Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
An objective person is a person with sufficient objectivity to understand that the universe does not revolve around their ego.
A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same.
If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer.
Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization.

Civilization is an emergent property. It has emerged from the law of the jungle. It is not part of the law of the jungle. It is separate from the law of the jungle. It is beyond the law of the jungle. It is above the law of the jungle. It is something entirely new. Civilization is what separates man from the animals. Humans are (in varying degrees) civilized. Animals are not.


There are 3 common positions:
1) The Theist position: There exists a magical and totally selfless being called 'god' that is the source of all morality (godliness) and civilized behavior should be derived from this morality.
2) The Hyper-empirical position: There is no 'god' therefore there is no morality (godliness) and therefore there is no such thing as civilized behavior (only mob rule) and everyone is free to do whatever they can get away with.
3) The Rationalist position: Civilization and civilized behavior are emergent properties that arises whenever you have a large number of objective human beings interacting with one another. A civilized society is a society governed by proper laws. Proper laws do not give any one person or any one group of people any special rights. All people have equal rights in a civilized society. Civilized behavior is behavior that respects proper laws, rules, and expectations.


In the hyper-empirical (autistic) world view, a person is seen as just a "collection of atoms" and since it is not improper to use, abuse, or manipulate atoms to one's own ends it is, therefore, not thought improper to use, abuse, or manipulate people to one's own ends.

On the face of it, this almost seems reasonable. After all, we are indeed made entirely of atoms (or some other units that can be modeled mathematically). It fails, however, to take into account the emergent phenomena that make a human being so much more than "just atoms". Atoms don't have thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, or aspirations but people do. Clearly, being "made of" something (for example atoms) is not the same thing as "being" something.

Sometimes hyper-empirical people will avoid the phrase "humans are just atoms" and will opt instead for "humans are just animals". Both phrases express the same underlying idea
 

sinkorswim

Junior Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
50
Location
Geogia USA
Basic Beliefs
no religion
I have come to the conclusion that there are five characteristics of civilized behavior. Not rules or laws that are imposed or enforced, but simple daily behaviors.
1. Tolerance. Often characterized by "live and let live. It is the realization that the only reason to interfere in someone else's life is to protect yourself or another person from attack or abuse.
2. Cooperation. It is the realization that we are all in this together and have to depend on each other to survive. "Me first" has never been as successful a survival scheme as "us together".
3. Respect. Treating people with respect as well as respecting their rights, property, and freedoms.
4. Responsibility. You have responsibility to yourself and to society. To become a better individual through education, study, health, etc, and a better citizen through involvement, activism, etc.
5. Honesty and integrity. Because none of this works if people can't trust each other.

Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
Morality flows from the emotions not from reason.

The rational thing to do is gain the greatest advantage in any way possible.

But if there is emotion, empathy for the other, then many ways of gaining an advantage are off limits.

Morality comes from people not forgetting what they already know.
 

Lion IRC

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2016
Messages
4,638
Basic Beliefs
Biblical theist
I think "civilisation" is simply another world for Darwinian survival advantage.
Human civilisation is a manifestation of our drive to out-compete less organised, less cooperative species. And in Darwinian, law-of-the-jungle terms, humans are just another species of animal.

We also see tribes of humans cooperating to out-compete other tribes. The clash of civilisations.
That's law-of-the-jungle Darwinian natural selection writ-large. #selfish_DNA

Look at all the once-great fallen empires. Decayed from the inside, many/most failed
because they got too civilised.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,086
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
In the abcient Japanese Samurai period public suicie was condiered an honorable civilized act.

Beyond generic based behavior all morality and morality is based on the culture.
 

Wiploc

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Messages
3,561
Location
Denver
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
1) The Theist position: There exists a magical and totally selfless being called 'god' that is the source of all morality (godliness) and civilized behavior should be derived from this morality.
2) The Hyper-empirical position: There is no 'god' therefore there is no morality (godliness) and therefore there is no such thing as civilized behavior (only mob rule) and everyone is free to do whatever they can get away with.

These two are both theist positions. It is theists who maintain that atheists would have no morality, that, in the absence of gods, one behavior would be as good as another.

There's no reason for atheists to agree with the "hyper-emprical position."
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
1) The Theist position: There exists a magical and totally selfless being called 'god' that is the source of all morality (godliness) and civilized behavior should be derived from this morality.
2) The Hyper-empirical position: There is no 'god' therefore there is no morality (godliness) and therefore there is no such thing as civilized behavior (only mob rule) and everyone is free to do whatever they can get away with.

These two are both theist positions. It is theists who maintain that atheists would have no morality, that, in the absence of gods, one behavior would be as good as another.

There's no reason for atheists to agree with the "hyper-emprical position."

"There is no god" is a theist position?
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
In the abcient Japanese Samurai period public suicie was condiered an honorable civilized act.

Beyond generic based behavior all morality and morality is based on the culture.

We have the death penalty here too. The difference is that they were shamed into killing themselves. Shame is believing that you did something immoral. There is no such thing as moral or immoral behavior. Only civilized and uncivilized behavior. Thats the whole point of this thread.
 

Wiploc

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Messages
3,561
Location
Denver
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
"There is no god" is a theist position?

Theists often claim that without gods there would be no morality. With gods, you can have morality; without gods, you can't .

That's a common theist position. There's no reason for any atheist to agree with it.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
"There is no god" is a theist position?

Theists often claim that without gods there would be no morality. With gods, you can have morality; without gods, you can't .

That's a common theist position. There's no reason for any atheist to agree with it.

Even if that is true the fact remains that many people that call themselves "atheists" do indeed agree with it.
 

Wiploc

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Messages
3,561
Location
Denver
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
"There is no god" is a theist position?

Theists often claim that without gods there would be no morality. With gods, you can have morality; without gods, you can't .

That's a common theist position. There's no reason for any atheist to agree with it.

Was that a yes or a no?

Theists believe there are gods. Atheists don't. Some atheists believe there are no gods.

"There is no god," is not a theist position.

- - - Updated - - -

"There is no god" is a theist position?

Theists often claim that without gods there would be no morality. With gods, you can have morality; without gods, you can't .

That's a common theist position. There's no reason for any atheist to agree with it.

Even if that is true the fact remains that many people that call themselves "atheists" do indeed agree with it.

True, but it's a bad move, a mistake.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,086
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
In the abcient Japanese Samurai period public suicie was condiered an honorable civilized act.

Beyond generic based behavior all morality and morality is based on the culture.

We have the death penalty here too. The difference is that they were shamed into killing themselves. Shame is believing that you did something immoral. There is no such thing as moral or immoral behavior. Only civilized and uncivilized behavior. Thats the whole point of this thread.

There is a Pacific island where the culture does not consider bare female breasts as sexually proactive or immoral. In their culture it is the exposed thigh. Cultural norms of morality varies with location and time.

I was told by someone at a company I visited periodically founded and run by Chinese immigrants not to cross legs and expose the bottom of a shoe to view. It is considered an insult.
 

Speakpigeon

Contributor
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
6,317
Location
Paris, France, EU
Basic Beliefs
Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
An objective person is a person with sufficient objectivity to understand that the universe does not revolve around their ego.
A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same.
If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer.
Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization.

Civilization is an emergent property. It has emerged from the law of the jungle. It is not part of the law of the jungle. It is separate from the law of the jungle. It is beyond the law of the jungle. It is above the law of the jungle. It is something entirely new. Civilization is what separates man from the animals. Humans are (in varying degrees) civilized. Animals are not.


There are 3 common positions:
1) The Theist position: There exists a magical and totally selfless being called 'god' that is the source of all morality (godliness) and civilized behavior should be derived from this morality.
2) The Hyper-empirical position: There is no 'god' therefore there is no morality (godliness) and therefore there is no such thing as civilized behavior (only mob rule) and everyone is free to do whatever they can get away with.
3) The Rationalist position: Civilization and civilized behavior are emergent properties that arises whenever you have a large number of objective human beings interacting with one another. A civilized society is a society governed by proper laws. Proper laws do not give any one person or any one group of people any special rights. All people have equal rights in a civilized society. Civilized behavior is behavior that respects proper laws, rules, and expectations.


In the hyper-empirical (autistic) world view, a person is seen as just a "collection of atoms" and since it is not improper to use, abuse, or manipulate atoms to one's own ends it is, therefore, not thought improper to use, abuse, or manipulate people to one's own ends.

On the face of it, this almost seems reasonable. After all, we are indeed made entirely of atoms (or some other units that can be modeled mathematically). It fails, however, to take into account the emergent phenomena that make a human being so much more than "just atoms". Atoms don't have thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, or aspirations but people do. Clearly, being "made of" something (for example atoms) is not the same thing as "being" something.

Sometimes hyper-empirical people will avoid the phrase "humans are just atoms" and will opt instead for "humans are just animals". Both phrases express the same underlying idea

As much as I would like to be able to agree with that I don't.

First, the notion of "emergence" is too fuzzy to make sense. To talk as you do of B as having "emerged" from A is just confused ontology that won't ever produce anything usefully practical.

Rather, you could usefully think in terms of just one system, say S. Then you could describe a particular state of S as being A, and another state of S as being B, and then explain how A and B are different from each other. Then you could usefully try to understand how S could transition from A to B, or indeed from B to A. That will always make sense and it's been shown to work. At least, I would hope so since all our machines are understood under this paradigm. There's no good reason not to apply this to human societies, and indeed to all questions about reality, although sometimes it may be really hard.

Second, there is no good reason to believe that the rational way to go about being civilised would be to treat each other as equals, as you suggest. In fact, the very-very societies that may look like being the more civilised, i.e. Western societies for most people living in Western societies, are also those that have been able to commit the most massive massacres in the whole history of human civilisations, i.e. industrialised World War I and World War II by industrialised, and "more civilised", countries, and the totalitarian regimes in the Soviet Union and in China born out of Western ideological struggles, and the Holocaust of the Jews by Nazi Germany, arguably the most uncivilised of all atrocities ever, committed by arguably the most civilised country at the time. And it is easy to see how capitalism works better than socialism essentially because of the principle that people are equal but don't have to be treated exactly in the same way, which invariably leads to people actually not being treated as equals. I haven't found a way around this contradiction, as Marx would have qualified it, and I don't think anybody has either. All I see is people tiptoeing around the elephant in the room, with a massive dose of hypocrisy to alleviate the pain. Keep talking.
EB
 

4321lynx

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
1,384
Location
Ontario, Canada
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
An objective person is a person with sufficient objectivity to understand that the universe does not revolve around their ego.
A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same.
If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer.
Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization.

Civilization is an emergent property. It has emerged from the law of the jungle. It is not part of the law of the jungle. It is separate from the law of the jungle. It is beyond the law of the jungle. It is above the law of the jungle. It is something entirely new. Civilization is what separates man from the animals. Humans are (in varying degrees) civilized. Animals are not.


There are 3 common positions:
1) The Theist position: There exists a magical and totally selfless being called 'god' that is the source of all morality (godliness) and civilized behavior should be derived from this morality.
2) The Hyper-empirical position: There is no 'god' therefore there is no morality (godliness) and therefore there is no such thing as civilized behavior (only mob rule) and everyone is free to do whatever they can get away with.
3) The Rationalist position: Civilization and civilized behavior are emergent properties that arises whenever you have a large number of objective human beings interacting with one another. A civilized society is a society governed by proper laws. Proper laws do not give any one person or any one group of people any special rights. All people have equal rights in a civilized society. Civilized behavior is behavior that respects proper laws, rules, and expectations.


In the hyper-empirical (autistic) world view, a person is seen as just a "collection of atoms" and since it is not improper to use, abuse, or manipulate atoms to one's own ends it is, therefore, not thought improper to use, abuse, or manipulate people to one's own ends.

On the face of it, this almost seems reasonable. After all, we are indeed made entirely of atoms (or some other units that can be modeled mathematically). It fails, however, to take into account the emergent phenomena that make a human being so much more than "just atoms". Atoms don't have thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, or aspirations but people do. Clearly, being "made of" something (for example atoms) is not the same thing as "being" something.

Sometimes hyper-empirical people will avoid the phrase "humans are just atoms" and will opt instead for "humans are just animals". Both phrases express the same underlying idea

As much as I would like to be able to agree with that I don't.

First, the notion of "emergence" is too fuzzy to make sense. To talk as you do of B as having "emerged" from A is just confused ontology that won't ever produce anything usefully practical.

Rather, you could usefully think in terms of just one system, say S. Then you could describe a particular state of S as being A, and another state of S as being B, and then explain how A and B are different from each other. Then you could usefully try to understand how S could transition from A to B, or indeed from B to A. That will always make sense and it's been shown to work. At least, I would hope so since all our machines are understood under this paradigm. There's no good reason not to apply this to human societies, and indeed to all questions about reality, although sometimes it may be really hard.

Second, there is no good reason to believe that the rational way to go about being civilised would be to treat each other as equals, as you suggest. In fact, the very-very societies that may look like being the more civilised, i.e. Western societies for most people living in Western societies, are also those that have been able to commit the most massive massacres in the whole history of human civilisations, i.e. industrialised World War I and World War II by industrialised, and "more civilised", countries, and the totalitarian regimes in the Soviet Union and in China born out of Western ideological struggles, and the Holocaust of the Jews by Nazi Germany, arguably the most uncivilised of all atrocities ever, committed by arguably the most civilised country at the time. And it is easy to see how capitalism works better than socialism essentially because of the principle that people are equal but don't have to be treated exactly in the same way, which invariably leads to people actually not being treated as equals. I haven't found a way around this contradiction, as Marx would have qualified it, and I don't think anybody has either. All I see is people tiptoeing around the elephant in the room, with a massive dose of hypocrisy to alleviate the pain. Keep talking.
EB

Good neoMarxist interpretation, I think on reading it quickly.

Also brings out the fact that it is not an explanation of the reason Why?

The reason Why? being simply that human nature has not changed in the past 10,000 or 1 million years, but the technology of killing has "improved" greatly, as has all technology, even the "technology" of philosophy, that is of worrying about things like killing your neighbours. Whether you call that worrying morality, civilization or religion or give it some other label does not really matter.
 
Last edited:

4321lynx

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
1,384
Location
Ontario, Canada
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
n-o-p said

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.

Then we've never seen a civilized society. All civilizations, religions, cults, traditions, were created and encouraged or discouraged over time in the service of one people: Egyptians, Chinese (e.g. Han), Hindu, various Mesopotamian nations, Arabs, Englishmen, Russians, etc.
Others were "persuaded" to join or enslaved or wiped out. It was never immoral to kill an enemy, and an enemy or potential enemy was anyone who was different and was unreasonable, that is would not do as he was told. And what has changed?

The 10 commandments refer to what a Jew should not do to a neighbour. That this neighbour is another Jew and not just anyone who lives near you the 613 Rules make plain. Their neighbour was Canaan. And this applies to all religions and civilizations, except perhaps Buddhism and a philosophy like Confucius' philosophy. But note how even these are applied in practice.

And note that the Wermacht had on their belts Gott Mit Uns, and that did not stop them from being very active in the Holocaust in the East, ie in Russia, Ukraine etc I don't know if the SS had the same.

Oh there were/are attempts: League of Nations, the UN, the EU, but these are not civilizations.
 

Lion IRC

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2016
Messages
4,638
Basic Beliefs
Biblical theist
Created - yes, we didn't cause ourselves to exist.

Equality - yes, this is a transcendent declaration. It requires an objective Higher Umpire. It cannot be a subjective claim. Humans can't subjectively 'grant' equality to other humans because if that were possible, humans could likewise deny equality to their fellow humans.

Liberty - yes, and the highest freedom is free will. The soul. Contra liberty is the idea of determinism and materialism.

Fraternity - yes, siblings share a common (capital "F") Father
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
An objective person is a person with sufficient objectivity to understand that the universe does not revolve around their ego.
A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same.
If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer.
Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization.

Civilization is an emergent property. It has emerged from the law of the jungle. It is not part of the law of the jungle. It is separate from the law of the jungle. It is beyond the law of the jungle. It is above the law of the jungle. It is something entirely new. Civilization is what separates man from the animals. Humans are (in varying degrees) civilized. Animals are not.


There are 3 common positions:
1) The Theist position: There exists a magical and totally selfless being called 'god' that is the source of all morality (godliness) and civilized behavior should be derived from this morality.
2) The Hyper-empirical position: There is no 'god' therefore there is no morality (godliness) and therefore there is no such thing as civilized behavior (only mob rule) and everyone is free to do whatever they can get away with.
3) The Rationalist position: Civilization and civilized behavior are emergent properties that arises whenever you have a large number of objective human beings interacting with one another. A civilized society is a society governed by proper laws. Proper laws do not give any one person or any one group of people any special rights. All people have equal rights in a civilized society. Civilized behavior is behavior that respects proper laws, rules, and expectations.


In the hyper-empirical (autistic) world view, a person is seen as just a "collection of atoms" and since it is not improper to use, abuse, or manipulate atoms to one's own ends it is, therefore, not thought improper to use, abuse, or manipulate people to one's own ends.

On the face of it, this almost seems reasonable. After all, we are indeed made entirely of atoms (or some other units that can be modeled mathematically). It fails, however, to take into account the emergent phenomena that make a human being so much more than "just atoms". Atoms don't have thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, or aspirations but people do. Clearly, being "made of" something (for example atoms) is not the same thing as "being" something.

Sometimes hyper-empirical people will avoid the phrase "humans are just atoms" and will opt instead for "humans are just animals". Both phrases express the same underlying idea

The entire concept of what it is to be civilized and what is "proper" (and therefore your entire argument) rest upon subjective moral positions. If morality did not exist, then civilization would not exist. "Objective morality" (a nonsensical concept) does not exist, because morality refers to what some minds subjectively prefer. However, those subjective states of preference do objectively exist. A civilization is what emerges when people agree to abide by a set of rules based in some set of shared or agreed upon preferences for how things should be.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
The entire concept of what it is to be civilized and what is "proper" (and therefore your entire argument) rest upon subjective moral positions. If morality did not exist, then civilization would not exist. "Objective morality" (a nonsensical concept) does not exist, because morality refers to what some minds subjectively prefer. However, those subjective states of preference do objectively exist. A civilization is what emerges when people agree to abide by a set of rules based in some set of shared or agreed upon preferences for how things should be.

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.
(Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.)

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same.
If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer.
Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
The entire concept of what it is to be civilized and what is "proper" (and therefore your entire argument) rest upon subjective moral positions. If morality did not exist, then civilization would not exist. "Objective morality" (a nonsensical concept) does not exist, because morality refers to what some minds subjectively prefer. However, those subjective states of preference do objectively exist. A civilization is what emerges when people agree to abide by a set of rules based in some set of shared or agreed upon preferences for how things should be.

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.
(Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.)

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same.
If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer.
Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization

Yeah, I read that when you wrote it the first time, and it rests entirely upon your subjective moral preferences that you are using to decide what it means to be "civilized" and that being civilized is "proper".
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,555
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
The fundamental flaw in almost all discussions of morality is basing arguments on the idea that morality exists to benefit the individual.

Morality and moral codes exist to protect the group. The means the wants and needs of any individual are subservient to that of the group. Moral judgment is group judgment, and as such, whatever religious or secular power that exists will be seen as the enforcer of the moral code.

None of this has anything to do with being nice to one another.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
Morality and moral codes exist to protect the group.

Civilization and civilized laws exist to protect the group (and the individuals within the group). There is no such thing as 'moral'.

- - - Updated - - -

The entire concept of what it is to be civilized and what is "proper" (and therefore your entire argument) rest upon subjective moral positions. If morality did not exist, then civilization would not exist. "Objective morality" (a nonsensical concept) does not exist, because morality refers to what some minds subjectively prefer. However, those subjective states of preference do objectively exist. A civilization is what emerges when people agree to abide by a set of rules based in some set of shared or agreed upon preferences for how things should be.

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.
(Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.)

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same.
If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer.
Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization

Yeah, I read that when you wrote it the first time, and it rests entirely upon your subjective moral preferences that you are using to decide what it means to be "civilized" and that being civilized is "proper".

My moral preferences? I just said that there is no such thing as 'moral' or 'immoral' behavior.
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
Civilization and civilized laws exist to protect the group (and the individuals within the group). There is no such thing as 'moral'.

- - - Updated - - -

The entire concept of what it is to be civilized and what is "proper" (and therefore your entire argument) rest upon subjective moral positions. If morality did not exist, then civilization would not exist. "Objective morality" (a nonsensical concept) does not exist, because morality refers to what some minds subjectively prefer. However, those subjective states of preference do objectively exist. A civilization is what emerges when people agree to abide by a set of rules based in some set of shared or agreed upon preferences for how things should be.

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.
(Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.)

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same.
If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer.
Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization

Yeah, I read that when you wrote it the first time, and it rests entirely upon your subjective moral preferences that you are using to decide what it means to be "civilized" and that being civilized is "proper".

My moral preferences? I just said that there is no such thing as 'moral' or 'immoral' behavior.

Yes, and then you stated your personal moral preferences, which exposes the logical inconsistency in your argument. The very concept of what is "proper" is a moral stance. The very concepts of "proper" and "civilized" are moral judgments. There is no objective basis for either. Both refer to how you think people should act to achieve some goal that you prefer. That is morality.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
Yes, and then you stated your personal moral preferences, which exposes the logical inconsistency in your argument. The very concept of what is "proper" is a moral stance. The very concepts of "proper" and "civilized" are moral judgments. There is no objective basis for either. Both refer to how you think people should act to achieve some goal that you prefer. That is morality.

Proper might not be the right word. Maybe 'legitimate' would have been better.
'Civilized' is not a moral judgement. I gave the exact definition above. There is nothing subjective about the definition I gave.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
The Rationalist position: Civilization and civilized behavior are emergent properties that arises whenever you have a large number of objective human beings interacting with one another. A civilized society is a society governed by civilized laws. Civilized laws do not give any one person or any one group of people any special rights. All people have equal rights in a civilized society. Civilized behavior is behavior that respects civilized laws, rules, and expectations.

(Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.)
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
Yes, and then you stated your personal moral preferences, which exposes the logical inconsistency in your argument. The very concept of what is "proper" is a moral stance. The very concepts of "proper" and "civilized" are moral judgments. There is no objective basis for either. Both refer to how you think people should act to achieve some goal that you prefer. That is morality.

Proper might not be the right word. Maybe 'legitimate' would have been better.
'Civilized' is not a moral judgement. I gave the exact definition above. There is nothing subjective about the definition I gave.

Legitimate is still a moral judgment. The only objective judgments are those involving what does or does not exist. Any positive or negative evaluation of things that exists or assertions that some ideal state is what ought to exist is a moral judgment.
The definition you gave refers to only one type of society, and possibly only to a hypothetical idealized one. Are you claiming this is the only type of society? If not, then you must be claiming either that this is the preferred type of society or the only one worthy of being called "civilized", both of which are subjective moral judgments. The simple notion that civilization is a good thing is a moral judgment and there inherent moral judgments in the standard definitions of the word civilized:
OED: polite, courteous, well mannered, good mannered, civil, decorous, gentlemanly, ladylike, gracious
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
Yes, and then you stated your personal moral preferences, which exposes the logical inconsistency in your argument. The very concept of what is "proper" is a moral stance. The very concepts of "proper" and "civilized" are moral judgments. There is no objective basis for either. Both refer to how you think people should act to achieve some goal that you prefer. That is morality.

Proper might not be the right word. Maybe 'legitimate' would have been better.
'Civilized' is not a moral judgement. I gave the exact definition above. There is nothing subjective about the definition I gave.

Legitimate is still a moral judgment. The only objective judgments are those involving what does or does not exist. Any positive or negative evaluation of things that exists or assertions that some ideal state is what ought to exist is a moral judgment.
The definition you gave refers to only one type of society, and possibly only to a hypothetical idealized one. Are you claiming this is the only type of society? If not, then you must be claiming either that this is the preferred type of society or the only one worthy of being called "civilized", both of which are subjective moral judgments. The simple notion that civilization is a good thing is a moral judgment and there inherent moral judgments in the standard definitions of the word civilized:
OED: polite, courteous, well mannered, good mannered, civil, decorous, gentlemanly, ladylike, gracious

As I said:

The Rationalist position: Civilization and civilized behavior are emergent properties that arises whenever you have a large number of objective human beings interacting with one another. A civilized society is a society governed by civilized laws. Civilized laws do not give any one person or any one group of people any special rights. All people have equal rights in a civilized society. Civilized behavior is behavior that respects civilized laws, rules, and expectations.

(Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.)
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
Legitimate is still a moral judgment. The only objective judgments are those involving what does or does not exist. Any positive or negative evaluation of things that exists or assertions that some ideal state is what ought to exist is a moral judgment.
The definition you gave refers to only one type of society, and possibly only to a hypothetical idealized one. Are you claiming this is the only type of society? If not, then you must be claiming either that this is the preferred type of society or the only one worthy of being called "civilized", both of which are subjective moral judgments. The simple notion that civilization is a good thing is a moral judgment and there inherent moral judgments in the standard definitions of the word civilized:
OED: polite, courteous, well mannered, good mannered, civil, decorous, gentlemanly, ladylike, gracious

As I said:

The Rationalist position: Civilization and civilized behavior are emergent properties that arises whenever you have a large number of objective human beings interacting with one another. A civilized society is a society governed by civilized laws. Civilized laws do not give any one person or any one group of people any special rights. All people have equal rights in a civilized society. Civilized behavior is behavior that respects civilized laws, rules, and expectations.

(Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.)

It is still subjective, if you are assuming that there is anything at all good, positive, or desirable about a "civilized" society, or "rights", or "respecting laws". And if you not assuming that there is anything positive or desirable about these things, then that would be in contradiction to how these terms are typically used.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
An objective person is a person with sufficient objectivity to understand that the universe does not revolve around their ego...

Actually it does.

My mind, for me, is the center of all things.

Morality flows from compassion, from empathy, from "positive" emotions.

I am kind to the stranger because it is positive for me to be so. I gain by being that way. I am less hollow and alone.

Following arbitrary laws, like drug war laws, is based on fear and cowering to authority.

It is something that makes one more hollow.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
There is no such thing as moral or immoral behavior. There is only civilized and uncivilized behavior.

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not favor any one person or any one group of people. The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.

Civilization is an emergent property the monetary system which is a an emergent property of psychology which is an emergent property of biology which is an emergent property of chemistry which is an emergency property of particle physics.

Some people seem to think that because every person and every society has different values and goals then it is impossible for there to be any universal laws of civilized society. That is simply not true.

Think of the process of achieving ones goal as driving to a distant point. Everyone has a different starting point and a different end point. But regardless of where people are going, they all need traffic lights and traffic laws or else no one will ever get anywhere.

The following are generally recognized as necessary for civilized society to function:

  1. Written laws
  2. Constitution
  3. Laws apply to everyone including goverment officials
  4. One vote per citizen (of sufficient age and maturity)
  5. Every vote counts
  6. No unnecessary detainment or detention (Habeas corpus)
  7. No Indefinite imprisonment
  8. Speedy trial
  9. Presumption of innocence
  10. Cant be tried twice
  11. Name, rank, and serial number only
  12. No breaking of contracts
  13. No damaging, destroying, or stealing others property
  14. No inflicting bodily harm on others
  15. No inflicting psychological harm on others (No torture)
  16. No invading the privacy of others
  17. No raping
  18. Equal pay for equal work
  19. Equal punishment for equal crimes
  20. Free Marketplace of ideas
All the rules above follow from the principle that all people are equal in the eyes of the law. But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same. If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer. Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization.
 

4321lynx

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
1,384
Location
Ontario, Canada
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
n-o-p said:-

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not favor any one person or any one group of people. The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

How big is your "society"? Family? Tribe? Nation? Masonic Lodge? "Race"? Global "family"?

Gods and Morality are both human inventions. Useful in holding/forcing togetherness on others, and justifying the "inferiority " of those who refuse to join in your togetherness, an inferiority that can, and has, frequently resulted in slavery and annihilation of other "societies" of varying sizes.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
n-o-p said:-

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not favor any one person or any one group of people. The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

How big is your "society"? Family? Tribe? Nation? Masonic Lodge? "Race"? Global "family"?

Gods and Morality are both human inventions. Useful in holding/forcing togetherness on others, and justifying the "inferiority " of those who refuse to join in your togetherness, an inferiority that can, and has, frequently resulted in slavery and annihilation of other "societies" of varying sizes.

What part of "everyone" did you not understand?

It includes everyone who is subject to that societies laws.
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
6,957
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
An objective person is a person with sufficient objectivity to understand that the universe does not revolve around their ego...

Actually it does.

My mind, for me, is the center of all things.

Morality flows from compassion, from empathy, from "positive" emotions.

I am kind to the stranger because it is positive for me to be so. I gain by being that way. I am less hollow and alone.

Following arbitrary laws, like drug war laws, is based on fear and cowering to authority.

It is something that makes one more hollow.

And sometimes, laws are created for good intentions based on bad ideas. A civilized civilization will realize when these ideas and laws are counter-productive, and have unwanted side effects or unforeseen consequences. The problem is when bad ideas become deeply embedded parts of a culture, buttressed by bad ideas about say, race, ideology or religion. Or bad political fads on the day. When competence, logic and reason are abandoned, a civilization becomes a bad one.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
An objective person is a person with sufficient objectivity to understand that the universe does not revolve around their ego...

Actually it does.

My mind, for me, is the center of all things.

Morality flows from compassion, from empathy, from "positive" emotions.

I am kind to the stranger because it is positive for me to be so. I gain by being that way. I am less hollow and alone.

Following arbitrary laws, like drug war laws, is based on fear and cowering to authority.

It is something that makes one more hollow.

civilization is not about empathy. Its about reason and logic. it's about realizing that if you want people to respect your rights then you must respect their rights too
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
You're both right/wrong.

Social conditions drive evolution of empathy and sharing. They are the same thing actually. Empathy arises from feeling what one senses in the behavior of others around one as being similar to how one feels about what is around one. Civilization arises from these feelings which is to say one uses what one senses to make rules for social behavior in groups.
 
Top Bottom