/sci/ - Science & Math

What your parents taught you, peer influences, what you've seen, things that have happened to you, and stuff like that.

Religion is completely unneccessary to develop good morals.

Pic related.

>>2283441
So they pull what is right or wrong out of their ass?

greater evil - evil - good - greater good

>>2283456
and what will this be based on

Don't kill, don't steal, don't rape. What else is there to not do? Swear? Have sex before marriage? Lie? Hah I'm fine with the first three religion gave us that other bullshit for no reason.

>>2283441

When somebody wants a base for morality he does not want a way to teach morality, he wants a source for morality.

>Religion is completely unneccessary to develop good morals.
>develop good morals.
>good morals
Please define what "good morals" is; and what you base that on.

>>2283453
Yep. You can pull it out of your ass, or you can pull it out of someone elses ass. Take your pick.

>>2283475
You fucking retard, get the fuck out of this thread. Saged.

>>2283453
Yup - right out of our asses. Fortunately our asses are more alike than different and what we pull out is pretty similar. Applies to both shit and morals.

>>2283426
Social pressure. Ultimately morality is to ensure en success of the tribe/community.

>>2283453
No, they're just repeating the process.

>>2283473
Why I base it on how I want people to treat me and by what seems fair.

I don't want people to kill me, or to steal from me. Therefore, not killing and stealing is generally good morals.

OP, you underestimate human intelligence. Because we have emotions, we can learn what makes us feel good or bad. And because of natural instincts like protecting your territory and property exists, we would know that trespassing is wrong, or stealing is wrong. And because pain, well, feels bad, we know it's bad to hit people. Although religion speeds up the process, it is entirely possible to create morals out of normal human instincts.

>>2283426
Where did religion get their morals from? People

/thread

whether or not your actions benefit you more than it takes away from society or others, or whether your actions benefit society or others more than they take away from you. how evil you are really depends on your acceptable ratio of how much you gain vs. how much others lose.

>>2283482
>Social pressure. Ultimately morality is to ensure en success of the tribe/community.
This means nothing. What do you mean "successful" society?
>A society is moral if it is morally successful
perfect_logic.jpg

Physiological needs that all humans share, and how to best satisfy them.

We've always been getting our moralities from people, it's just that some people 2000 years ago said MINES CORRECT CAUSE A INVISIBLE MAN FROM THE SKY TOLD ME SO.

I cut down a tree (evil)
To build a house (greater good)
I plant a tree (good)
To make sure nature continues (greater good)
I plant a tree (good)
So I can extract chemicals from it in the future for weapons or poisons (greater evil)
I kill someone (evil)
To survive (greater good)
I kill someone (evil)
For the lulz (greater evil)
I help someone (good)
Who is really a criminal/bad person (greater evil)
I lie about God (evil)
So humanity eventually dies out (greater evil)
I tell the truth about God (good)
So humanity prospers and obtains eternal life (greater good)

>>2283486
>Why I base it on how I want people to treat me

>If I was BP, I wouldn't want to be held accountable for the oil spill. So I won't hold them responsible.

perfect_logic.jpg

>generally
cool cop-out bro

>>2283534
> I tell the truth about God (good)
The truth - god does not exist.

>>2283426
Moriliaty stems from the idea of social contract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Take polysci course you fuckin retard

\thread

Utilitarianism. We apply what feels good to the entire human population.

Happiness is good by definition. Suffering is bad by definition.

>>2283534
What if you weren't killing to survive, or for the lulz, just because the guy was a douchenozzle that needed to die?

Seriously, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is pretty much the only rule you need, it covers fucking everything.

>>2283426

Morals exist as a metaphysical construct, much like God(s). They cannot be proven or disproven to exist, much akin to the belief in God(s). They are entirely relative.

We only think religion is the ultimate moral guide because it is the most obvious and influencial amalgamation of moral code. There's something about majority rules that makes humans blindly believe in no other alternatives.

Having a discussion like this has no point, because nothing is strictly a part of the real world, i. e. inherent to reality. This is pointless.

>>2283426
We aren't talking about legitimacy of the state here, but ethics in general.

If your action is good, you gained more than others lost from it. Or others gained more than what you lost from it.
If your action is bad, you gained less than others lost from it.

>>2283548
nice to see a smart anon on /sci/

>>2283578
Cool ethical guideline bro, sadly we don't give a shit. You need to explain WHY those guidelines are moral.

>>2283596
>"Moriliaty"
>smart anon
yeah.

>>2283426
>>2283426
Let me instead ask you, what morality does religion teach that is unique?

well, most religions tend to list things like; don't steal, don't kill, don't lie, treat others as you would want to be treated. None of which is all that fucking special. A kindergarten class could probably come up with those "morals" without any help.

Then we have some "morals" that are specific to each religion. usually about how that specific god is jealous and will take vengeance on not only you but your whole family if you pray to another god. Not really relevant to any form of "morality" if you ask me.

So what then does religion teach us that makes it SOOO special-?

There is no objective value of any kind. Morality is completely subjective. That becomes obvious whenever people debate any contentious moral topic. Abortion, capital punishment, if the government should redistribute wealth, etc.

The majority of people subjectively agree about murder, rape, theft, etc. And that gives false hope that there is some objective framework behind this. But there is not.

Everybody agrees that torturing babies is 'wrong', but just try and prove it starting only with premises that are devoid of any moral or value-laden terms.

This thread makes me proud of being an atheist.

>>2283551
Only if the action was morally correct, 'karma', what goes around comes around -- if the person was bad and deserved to die, and you killed him for his crimes, it's for the greater good; this however must be justified, which can be judged on a number of different principles
-defence (as in, if the crime he was committing was against you physically): if the person was going to kill you, but you were good(er) than him then he deserved to die, meaning that if you killed him in any way you would be doing it for the greater good (evil kinda gets cancelled out); if you personally were more evil, then you would be committing greater evil.

This is judged by a number of things (strategy, intelligence, among them). Along with this range of acquired intelligence is 'karma'; all intelligence is being used for a specific reason, and if this reason (this picture of the greater good or greater evil) then the mens rea is evil (meaning the person is greater evil), if this knowledge isn't evil then the mens rea is greater good.

>>2283604

>>2283520
>This means nothing. What do you mean "successful" society?

As opposed to failed. What I meant is that all morals all have an utilitarian origin.

>>2283628
> What I meant is that all morals all have an utilitarian origin.
Imagine a person/being that derives more pleasure from every item consumed than any other. Shouldn't all resources in the world be given to this being? Utilitarianism doesn't work when taken to it's logical end.

Corollary for religionfags: If you realized your religious practices and your texts were fake, would you suddenly start going on killing sprees?

>>2283628
>all morals all have an utilitarian origin.

DURRRR.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Can you not read?

>>2283645
Fuck off with the social contract shit already, it only applies to the STATE, and not person-to-person interactions.

>>2283598
the question was what it was based on, not why it was based on that. I don't believe religion answers that question either. I don't ever remember seeing a religious answer as to WHY killing someone is bad, only that it is. However I will answer your why question from a scientific perspective. The answer is probably evolution, species that follow that general rule are more likely to survive than those that don't. This is further proved by the fact that there are individuals who have lost that trait (i.e. sociopaths), and that they are less likely to reproduce than non-sociopaths.

>>2283666
>The answer is probably evolution, species that follow that general rule are more likely to survive than those that don't

Ah, but what's to say that evolution is moral? That it has been successful in the past is no ethical basis... Otherwise slavery would be okay, because nice things eg. the pyramids where built using slavery, etc.

also:
>666

>>2283657
Do you know how fucking stupid you sound?
Please, go read a fuckin book.

Anytime you have more then one person, you have a social contract...DURRR.

>>2283685
>Anytime you have more then one person, you have a social contract

No. Read your own link, faggot.

>>2283657
In the natural state of nature: each person has unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten our own self-preservation. With everyone exercising these freedoms there would be an endless "war of all against all" (Bellum omnium contra omnes).

To avoid this, free men establish i.e. civil society through a social contract. The things you call "morals" are just the fundemental laws in the social contract.

While you may think that your morals are "subjective", they are really just an "objective" set of principles based on the social contracts of those before you.

Things you call "morals" were actually taught to you. Example: "don't kill", "don't steal", "respect your elders"...blah blah blah. These are all "learned".

My whims. /thread

>>2283696
Sorry the link doesn't dumb things down enough for you. You should work on your critical thinking skills.

>>2283735
I get it nao.

Religion began as superstition. A few nefarious characters realized they could extract power and wealth from the superstitious and less cognizant among them. The same can be said for fractional reserve banking.

Stoning people is moral for some.
Hanging people is moral for some.
Beheading people is moral for some.

All in the name of religion . . .

>>2283735

Well, this only explains how human behaviour originated. What you need is a reason for why continuing on with those behaviours is proper.

Imagine that, for some reason, random torture was in the social contract. Would this make torture good? No.

>>2283775
Torture is not good to you because you were taught torture is not good. If you were reared believing torture, even random torture, was A-OK, you wouldn't have used torture as a reference of something immoral.

>>2283426
What it's always been based on, the innate instinctual morality which arose through evolution by natural selection.

>>2283775
Some cultures mutilate female genitalia. We would think that to be inhumane and tortuous. I've even heard that some cultures cut off pieces of the penis on babies due to pagan beliefs. Morals/right/wrong are contrived by groups of people - always.

stupid!!!!