http://forum.wayofthemind.org/ Fri, 16 May 2008 16:07:35 +0100 MyBB http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=102 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:51:36 +0100 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=102
We're not supposed to come back and survive the trip because we're just space monkeys. Our purpose is to live. As simple as that. There is no good or bad outcome. There are no good or bad things in life. Its kind of like a dream. While your dreaming sometimes you worry about things and run away from things and feel bad and stressed about bad things that happen but once you wake up you realize none of it even mattered so if you knew that you while you were dreaming you would have acted differently. Have you ever had a dream were your struggling with something then you realize your dreaming so whatever was giving you trouble disappears so all thats left to do is whatever the hell you want.

I have a feeling life is very similar to a dream. We worry about the future and the past and take things seriously but only because we don't know the nature of reality.]]>
We're not supposed to come back and survive the trip because we're just space monkeys. Our purpose is to live. As simple as that. There is no good or bad outcome. There are no good or bad things in life. Its kind of like a dream. While your dreaming sometimes you worry about things and run away from things and feel bad and stressed about bad things that happen but once you wake up you realize none of it even mattered so if you knew that you while you were dreaming you would have acted differently. Have you ever had a dream were your struggling with something then you realize your dreaming so whatever was giving you trouble disappears so all thats left to do is whatever the hell you want.

I have a feeling life is very similar to a dream. We worry about the future and the past and take things seriously but only because we don't know the nature of reality.]]> http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=100 Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:59:37 +0000 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=100
I'm from Finland, which these days stands as a greyzone of moral, religious and political ideology... we are neutral if thats the word you want to use.

Due to this fact I might be blind to some subjective responses my ideas might provoke, but I encourage to challenge me if something I say seems wrong. I keep all concepts that I think about far far away from my ego, thus explain to me why I'm wrong and I will "submit" (not without tossing a few question back and forth, of course), rather than get offended and make it personal. In return I wish that if you are one that my text should provoke, take some time and play around with a thought that perhaps everything in this world can be questioned. Not because we want to contradict, but because we want to know and understand!

Thus apologies in advance, hope they remain unnecessary.

So GL HF to ye all! I know I will :)]]>
I'm from Finland, which these days stands as a greyzone of moral, religious and political ideology... we are neutral if thats the word you want to use.

Due to this fact I might be blind to some subjective responses my ideas might provoke, but I encourage to challenge me if something I say seems wrong. I keep all concepts that I think about far far away from my ego, thus explain to me why I'm wrong and I will "submit" (not without tossing a few question back and forth, of course), rather than get offended and make it personal. In return I wish that if you are one that my text should provoke, take some time and play around with a thought that perhaps everything in this world can be questioned. Not because we want to contradict, but because we want to know and understand!

Thus apologies in advance, hope they remain unnecessary.

So GL HF to ye all! I know I will :)]]> http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=99 Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:42:26 +0000 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=99
I have been thinking about how one develops in this modern society. Imo this topic would have a lot to discuss about.

Here are a few to validate my point:

If one would look at a person from evolutionary standpoints, one would be able to come up with some of the following conclusions:

(and for all of you creationists out there, from the point that humans have the ability to adapt if our surroundings change, call it what you will, lets try to stick on the same page here :D)

1) My grandparents parents and many of the worlds people today know/knew a world without electricity, computers, apartment buildings and cars. This means that the development of our society has happened within a very short time.

Now think that from an evolutionary standpoint our bodies are still in shock, due to a radical change in our diet 10,000 years ago when agriculture was developed.

Thus, it would be pretty safe to say that our instincts are pretty much from the same era (perhaps from even further away).

Times before organized civilization we could pretty much trust our instincts to tell us how to cope with situations. Our world corresponded with our biological side, but with the growing complexity of our surroundings things ain't that easy no more.

We still have the same needs:

-Social needs (to belong, to be accepted and acknowledged)
The base that makes us a hyper-social specie

-Physical needs (general movement, muscle stress etc...)
An instinct easy to override with thought, but still a part of us. Why one feels good after a good jog no matter how bad day the person has had? Because you just satisfied a basic need and your body does reward you for it. There is a theorem that most of the depression found in industrialized countries could be avoided with exercise, proper diet and natural sleeping rhythm.

-Sexual needs and roles (male/female sexual roles, mating rituals etc...)
I think everyone has a different idea about this (and other topics as well), but we still look at the same things in a woman. I haven't found a woman alive that would deny being scared and during those times wanting someone to hold her tight, to protect her from all the evils in the world. They are all there... they just take all kinds of forms).

Now, my point is this:

If in the past (like, way way way past :D) development of a child was relatively easy because:

a) instincts gave the kid some idea what to do, and mostly they were correct, because the surrounding corresponded with them.

b) The standards that the world required from each one of us were smaller or more straight forward, yeah, more clear, not easier.

So now that our world is completely different from what our instincts try to tell us, every child that is born will have to go through a life long search for meaning, persona, acceptance and even the concept of what is real to begin with! Things just ain't simple no more, and we are among the first generations that have to make this into a standard, cause if we don't and things go as they have for a few decades now some bad shit is going to go down :D

Thus, as I said in one of my other posts:

If we with to ever come even close to understand this world, we have to accept that it ain't gonna happen over night. What we achieve will be the base on which the next generation will start their battles, and the better we are able to pass down the info the easier it will be for them.

If someone has read/thought about similar things I would be very interested to hear about them. Please Discuss when/if the new category is put up :D]]>
I have been thinking about how one develops in this modern society. Imo this topic would have a lot to discuss about.

Here are a few to validate my point:

If one would look at a person from evolutionary standpoints, one would be able to come up with some of the following conclusions:

(and for all of you creationists out there, from the point that humans have the ability to adapt if our surroundings change, call it what you will, lets try to stick on the same page here :D)

1) My grandparents parents and many of the worlds people today know/knew a world without electricity, computers, apartment buildings and cars. This means that the development of our society has happened within a very short time.

Now think that from an evolutionary standpoint our bodies are still in shock, due to a radical change in our diet 10,000 years ago when agriculture was developed.

Thus, it would be pretty safe to say that our instincts are pretty much from the same era (perhaps from even further away).

Times before organized civilization we could pretty much trust our instincts to tell us how to cope with situations. Our world corresponded with our biological side, but with the growing complexity of our surroundings things ain't that easy no more.

We still have the same needs:

-Social needs (to belong, to be accepted and acknowledged)
The base that makes us a hyper-social specie

-Physical needs (general movement, muscle stress etc...)
An instinct easy to override with thought, but still a part of us. Why one feels good after a good jog no matter how bad day the person has had? Because you just satisfied a basic need and your body does reward you for it. There is a theorem that most of the depression found in industrialized countries could be avoided with exercise, proper diet and natural sleeping rhythm.

-Sexual needs and roles (male/female sexual roles, mating rituals etc...)
I think everyone has a different idea about this (and other topics as well), but we still look at the same things in a woman. I haven't found a woman alive that would deny being scared and during those times wanting someone to hold her tight, to protect her from all the evils in the world. They are all there... they just take all kinds of forms).

Now, my point is this:

If in the past (like, way way way past :D) development of a child was relatively easy because:

a) instincts gave the kid some idea what to do, and mostly they were correct, because the surrounding corresponded with them.

b) The standards that the world required from each one of us were smaller or more straight forward, yeah, more clear, not easier.

So now that our world is completely different from what our instincts try to tell us, every child that is born will have to go through a life long search for meaning, persona, acceptance and even the concept of what is real to begin with! Things just ain't simple no more, and we are among the first generations that have to make this into a standard, cause if we don't and things go as they have for a few decades now some bad shit is going to go down :D

Thus, as I said in one of my other posts:

If we with to ever come even close to understand this world, we have to accept that it ain't gonna happen over night. What we achieve will be the base on which the next generation will start their battles, and the better we are able to pass down the info the easier it will be for them.

If someone has read/thought about similar things I would be very interested to hear about them. Please Discuss when/if the new category is put up :D]]> http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=98 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:01:00 +0000 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=98 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=97 Wed, 05 Dec 2007 15:47:53 +0000 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=97
Step 1 - We admitted that we were wrong about creation and 'intelligent design'.
Step 2 - Came to believe that our planet came from an event in space which caused our solar system to expand and develop over millions of years, an expansion which is ongoing.
Step 3 - Made a decision to turn our belief in this event into opening up our minds to further new learning.
Step 4 - Made a searching and fearless intellectual inventory of what we know about evolution and admitting our lack of knowledge about it.
Step 5 - Admitted to ourselves and our families that we have become proponents of this newfound belief system.
Step 6 - Were entirely ready to allow science remove our lack of knowledge.
Step 7 - Humbly admitted to our children that our indoctrination of them with mythology was wrong.
Step 8 - Made a list of all persons we had misinformed and took steps to apologize to them for this misinformation
Step 9 - Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, especially to our children who were denied education because of our own ignorance, and being adult enough to admit we were wrong.
Step 10 - Continued to take the steps necessary to learn more about fossils and how they are dated.
Step 11 - Sought through reading and further education to broaden our knowledge of matters scientific.
Step 12 - Having learned this theory and having opened up our minds to further new learning, being prepared to take this learning to other ignorant people.

All people who indoctrinate their children with mythology that was stupid when it was told to unsophisticated hunter-gatherers thousands of years ago to explain the inexplicable, should be forced to go to classes to learn these steps where they should be made to stand up and say: "Hi my name is 'total idiot' and I am a creationist".
Then after the class in which new recruits talk about how they have been persuaded to admit that ancient mythology cannot possibly apply in a society where science is disproving the mythology, some really good food and wine should be served, during which meal further scientific discoveries should be announced, which should be discussed in an open and honest manner with the new recruits quietly listening to those who know more about the functioning of the planet and its natural resources.]]>
Step 1 - We admitted that we were wrong about creation and 'intelligent design'.
Step 2 - Came to believe that our planet came from an event in space which caused our solar system to expand and develop over millions of years, an expansion which is ongoing.
Step 3 - Made a decision to turn our belief in this event into opening up our minds to further new learning.
Step 4 - Made a searching and fearless intellectual inventory of what we know about evolution and admitting our lack of knowledge about it.
Step 5 - Admitted to ourselves and our families that we have become proponents of this newfound belief system.
Step 6 - Were entirely ready to allow science remove our lack of knowledge.
Step 7 - Humbly admitted to our children that our indoctrination of them with mythology was wrong.
Step 8 - Made a list of all persons we had misinformed and took steps to apologize to them for this misinformation
Step 9 - Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, especially to our children who were denied education because of our own ignorance, and being adult enough to admit we were wrong.
Step 10 - Continued to take the steps necessary to learn more about fossils and how they are dated.
Step 11 - Sought through reading and further education to broaden our knowledge of matters scientific.
Step 12 - Having learned this theory and having opened up our minds to further new learning, being prepared to take this learning to other ignorant people.

All people who indoctrinate their children with mythology that was stupid when it was told to unsophisticated hunter-gatherers thousands of years ago to explain the inexplicable, should be forced to go to classes to learn these steps where they should be made to stand up and say: "Hi my name is 'total idiot' and I am a creationist".
Then after the class in which new recruits talk about how they have been persuaded to admit that ancient mythology cannot possibly apply in a society where science is disproving the mythology, some really good food and wine should be served, during which meal further scientific discoveries should be announced, which should be discussed in an open and honest manner with the new recruits quietly listening to those who know more about the functioning of the planet and its natural resources.]]> http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=96 Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:19:22 +0000 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=96 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=95 Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:08:51 +0000 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=95 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=94 Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:32:42 +0100 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=94
so i bring it to you.... http://youtube.com/watch?v=KdWlA6j_Fec

hope you like it.]]>
so i bring it to you.... http://youtube.com/watch?v=KdWlA6j_Fec

hope you like it.]]> http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=93 Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:00:12 +0100 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=93 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=92 Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:11:53 +0100 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=92
First of all I completly disagre with buddists, hindus. muslims, and I dont think the Jews are right. So Im down to two main beliefs Im not a christian but I'm not going to throw my name in with this lot untill you can convince me. I have read many sections but the one thing I want to see is proof, or scientific evidence broken down so I can understand it. See im not super bright but I do believe in being fair so I have asked several pastors to tell my why I should believe what they think and Im asking you guys. why should I believe in what you think? I think that is fair, dont you? I am giving everyone a chance to present thier case and Im going to choose based on the better evidence. basicly Im saying you show me the truth and I'll bring up some of your points to the pastors I asked and some of thier points to you. I want to see the light and I want to see who has it.]]>
First of all I completly disagre with buddists, hindus. muslims, and I dont think the Jews are right. So Im down to two main beliefs Im not a christian but I'm not going to throw my name in with this lot untill you can convince me. I have read many sections but the one thing I want to see is proof, or scientific evidence broken down so I can understand it. See im not super bright but I do believe in being fair so I have asked several pastors to tell my why I should believe what they think and Im asking you guys. why should I believe in what you think? I think that is fair, dont you? I am giving everyone a chance to present thier case and Im going to choose based on the better evidence. basicly Im saying you show me the truth and I'll bring up some of your points to the pastors I asked and some of thier points to you. I want to see the light and I want to see who has it.]]> http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=91 Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:26:48 +0100 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=91
I how this is not a really ignorant question.]]>
I how this is not a really ignorant question.]]> http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=90 Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:14:32 +0100 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=90
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf8q9QHfhI

that's episode 1.
[episode 6 is the superbowl special]]]>
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf8q9QHfhI

that's episode 1.
[episode 6 is the superbowl special]]]> http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=89 Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:06:47 +0100 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=89
ps. like my new quote?

pps. this is post #999.]]>
ps. like my new quote?

pps. this is post #999.]]> http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=88 Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:47:22 +0100 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=88

So is the belief that logic works simply an axiom we choose to go by which is not actually proven (or provable)?]]>

So is the belief that logic works simply an axiom we choose to go by which is not actually proven (or provable)?]]> http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=87 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 04:32:33 +0100 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=87
Morality is a manmade system tailored to reach a specific end, just like mathematics. That specific end is happiness. You can hold different definitions of morality, but if you change the definition of any words you will change what they mean entirely. Math is an objective system. But it is true that is you changed the definition of math to "a system that will not let us gain any greater understanding of the universe" then it will work differently. But that is no longer mathematics. By the same logic, you cannot change the definition of morality then claim morality is subjective due to these alternate definitions.

Morality, like math, has a right answer or answers for the given situations. Sometimes we may not be able to find the right answer, we may lack the data to be sure that our current answer is correct, and we are never able to fully prove we are right. But the right answer still exists.

How can you believe in objective morality without God?

As a mere system, morality is no more difficult to accept for an atheist than mathematics. We create objective systems all the time. This in no way requires a deity of any type.

Why is morality concerned with happiness?

To obtain happiness (in the short or long term) is each and every one of our ultimate goals which we base every action we make on. We go to school to get a job to get money to make us happy. We help our friends because we are happy when they are happy. We donate to charity because we feel better when helping others (or because we want to look generous, which also makes us happy). Sometimes we eat a lot of junk food to make us happy in the short term, at the cost of losing happiness later on. Other times we defer our pleasure, and save up our money to achieve happiness later on. But whether it is short or long term, happiness is the ultimate end of all our actions.

So, since happiness is our ultimate goal then it is truly the thing most important to us. Morality is concerned with right and wrong. And what could be more wrong than taking what is most dear to someone? And what more right than taking or defending it?

We only want to please ourselves? Is this not a selfish worldview?

No! This simply describes why we do the good and evil things we do. It is not exactly selfish to share in the pleasure of another. This can be interpreted as a negative worldview, but it is merely used as an explanation. We all wish to be happy, and traits like love, caring, and friendship are ways in which we can give and receive happiness from others.

What of evil people? Is it not immoral to punish them, as by doing so we reduce their happiness?

People who are evil act outside the system of morality. They ignore it, and they are morally wrong. So if an action requires us to take away their happiness for the happiness of another, it should be done. One cannot ignore the requirements of reality and expect others to still give them the same benefits as they would to those who adhere to morality. This is why jails and the like are moral. We make the immoral suffer, but it is so the moral can live with a greater degree of happiness. We protect the happiness of those who will not steal the happiness of others. We protect the good, but must harm the evil to do so.

What of rights?

Rights are a concept vital to morality. Again, they are manmade and in no way divine, but still important. It would seem that sometimes we reduce overall happiness to protect somebody's rights. But it would also seem that we do not think it moral to, say, murder one healthy person in the waiting room of a hospital to save the lives of 2 who need his organs. It may seem like we are increasing the amount of happiness, but this action appears to be immoral (instinctually, at least).

It was actually this example which made me doubt this moral system for quite some time. But then I realized that killing this one person does not actually increase the happiness of our system as a whole. By allowing this death, we cause the people of our society to live in constant fear that they may be randomly killed for such a cause. It would greatly demerit the life and safety of the individuals in our society, so it would decrease net happiness.

This means to kill this person is immoral under this system, as we would intuitively believe.

Note: if it were a situation where killing the one person would save a million, then it would cause less happiness for the system to not kill them. For then we would be in a system where people feared (and simply caused) mass death because we value one person too much. I cannot give the exact value of how many people are allowed to die (morality is a system just too complex for me to work that accurately with) but we can know not to kill to save one, and to kill to save a billion.

What of selfishness?

Another rule in the system is that happiness you give yourself is not included in the net calculation. If you hurt others to become happy yourself, you are still immoral, because the only happiness you increased was your own. There are times where you can make yourself extremely happy, and harm someone else very little, that may seem okay to do. For example, if you could somehow steal one dollar to become a millionaire. But, while doing this harm is understandable and not vastly immoral (because you do so little of it), it is still somewhat immoral overall.

What of suicide? Does this not take away the happiness of the individual? Yet people still do it. Does this not contradict your theory of all action being aimed at happiness?

No, there is no contradiction. The person in question is merely looking to lose their short term suffering (an overall increase in happiness) through death. They ignore the possibility of long term happiness for short term happiness.

However, since you are likely hurting those close to you for your own happiness, suicide is usually not moral.

But how to you account for situations which appear to have multiple morally correct answers?

Multiple things could result in this. First, we could simply have made an error. Morality is a system even more complex than mathematics, and math is difficult in itself. Mistakes will happen. Secondly, as in math, sometimes multiple answers are both right. For example, the equation:

(x-2)(x+1)=0

allows for x to be equal to 2 or -1. Both are absolutely and objectively correct. Just because there are multiple correct answers doesn't mean that one is wrong and the other is right.

How about a situation with no correct answer?

This happens in math as well. For instance:

x^2 + 1= 0

No real number can satisfy this equation. Just because we have a system in place does not mean that we must be able to create a right answer for every situation the system encounters.

Note: I am aware that the answer to this equation is the imaginary number i. This was just a quick example to show how no right answer can exist without making the system flawed (as we created imaginary numbers to help the mathematic system work, but they don't actually represent a practical object). Another example of an undefined function is 0/0, if that works better for you.

Second note: I do also realize that 0/0 may indeed have a value, and we simply haven't found it yet. This may be true, and can work for situations in morality as well where we do not see a possibly right answer currently, but later tweak or expand the system to uncover it.

How can you simply throw out other peoples definitions for morality?

Other definitions for morality other then the commonly accepted one of dealing with right and wrong is simply redefining the terms. We can argue over different systems, just like we could in math and programming languages, but we cannot actually say that math is a type of tropical fish, or a system concerned with the structure of the English language. The same holds for morality. When someone postulates a different meaning for the word, they should simply make up a new word. They usually don't want to say "I don't believe in morality" though, so they make up a new definition for morality that they do believe in so they don't seem like immoral people.

Isn't it arrogant to say you know morality in an objective sense? Is that not kind of judgemental, like you pretend to be God?

I am treating morality no different than science. If anyone provides examples and such that seem to contradict my theory, I will have it modified or thrown out entirely as the situation calls for it. I even currently would not doubt that it could use some fine tuning. I mean, a year ago I saw morality as completely subjective and was quite humbled when I saw how nonsensical that was. So, I admit I could be wrong, but I will stand by this until chosen otherwise. Also, people should be judged by their actions. It is not judgemental to see evil and call it such. If your judgements are well supported, it is good to be "judgemental".

Why is evil inherently wrong? Why can't I be a jerk?

Evil is immoral by definition. However, morality is merely a man made system like math. You do not need to personally adhere to it. You are a morally bad person if you ignore morality, and must face the consequences of this. If in math, you ignore the system, you fail the class. In morality, you go to jail or are generally disliked and distrusted. There is no objective reason saying you should be moral, only an objective way to be moral if you choose to do so.

Doesn't your theory on what drives humanity conflict with your moral theory? If human nature is selfish and concerned with one's own happiness, and morality is selfless, then why do we find any individuals who act morally?

One would only ever choose to be moral in my system if they truly gained happiness through morality. This could be because it just makes them feel better about themselves, because they hope to avoid punishment (jail or hell for Christians for example), or because they see it benefiting them is some other way.

Do you differentiate between the morality of an action and the person who performs it?

Of course. An action can be evil, while the actor does not become more evil due to it. Inversely, a person may do a good action with ill intent. For example, if I meant to help someone in math, but made a mistake and taught them the wrong formula, my action itself would be immoral because it reduced our net happiness, but I would not be less moral for it because I did not intend to do so. The opposite is true if I intended to give the wrong formula, but happened to give the correct one by accident. The action is moral, as it does increase happiness, but I am still more immoral for doing it.

In short, the morality of an action depends on the net change in happiness it causes. The morality of an agent is based on the net change in happiness they believe they will cause with the action. This portion of my moral system is borrowed from Immanuel Kant in his 'Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals'.




So, what do you think? Do you disagree with morality being a manmade system? Do you believe it to be subjective? Is it not concerned with happiness? I'd love to know.]]>
Morality is a manmade system tailored to reach a specific end, just like mathematics. That specific end is happiness. You can hold different definitions of morality, but if you change the definition of any words you will change what they mean entirely. Math is an objective system. But it is true that is you changed the definition of math to "a system that will not let us gain any greater understanding of the universe" then it will work differently. But that is no longer mathematics. By the same logic, you cannot change the definition of morality then claim morality is subjective due to these alternate definitions.

Morality, like math, has a right answer or answers for the given situations. Sometimes we may not be able to find the right answer, we may lack the data to be sure that our current answer is correct, and we are never able to fully prove we are right. But the right answer still exists.

How can you believe in objective morality without God?

As a mere system, morality is no more difficult to accept for an atheist than mathematics. We create objective systems all the time. This in no way requires a deity of any type.

Why is morality concerned with happiness?

To obtain happiness (in the short or long term) is each and every one of our ultimate goals which we base every action we make on. We go to school to get a job to get money to make us happy. We help our friends because we are happy when they are happy. We donate to charity because we feel better when helping others (or because we want to look generous, which also makes us happy). Sometimes we eat a lot of junk food to make us happy in the short term, at the cost of losing happiness later on. Other times we defer our pleasure, and save up our money to achieve happiness later on. But whether it is short or long term, happiness is the ultimate end of all our actions.

So, since happiness is our ultimate goal then it is truly the thing most important to us. Morality is concerned with right and wrong. And what could be more wrong than taking what is most dear to someone? And what more right than taking or defending it?

We only want to please ourselves? Is this not a selfish worldview?

No! This simply describes why we do the good and evil things we do. It is not exactly selfish to share in the pleasure of another. This can be interpreted as a negative worldview, but it is merely used as an explanation. We all wish to be happy, and traits like love, caring, and friendship are ways in which we can give and receive happiness from others.

What of evil people? Is it not immoral to punish them, as by doing so we reduce their happiness?

People who are evil act outside the system of morality. They ignore it, and they are morally wrong. So if an action requires us to take away their happiness for the happiness of another, it should be done. One cannot ignore the requirements of reality and expect others to still give them the same benefits as they would to those who adhere to morality. This is why jails and the like are moral. We make the immoral suffer, but it is so the moral can live with a greater degree of happiness. We protect the happiness of those who will not steal the happiness of others. We protect the good, but must harm the evil to do so.

What of rights?

Rights are a concept vital to morality. Again, they are manmade and in no way divine, but still important. It would seem that sometimes we reduce overall happiness to protect somebody's rights. But it would also seem that we do not think it moral to, say, murder one healthy person in the waiting room of a hospital to save the lives of 2 who need his organs. It may seem like we are increasing the amount of happiness, but this action appears to be immoral (instinctually, at least).

It was actually this example which made me doubt this moral system for quite some time. But then I realized that killing this one person does not actually increase the happiness of our system as a whole. By allowing this death, we cause the people of our society to live in constant fear that they may be randomly killed for such a cause. It would greatly demerit the life and safety of the individuals in our society, so it would decrease net happiness.

This means to kill this person is immoral under this system, as we would intuitively believe.

Note: if it were a situation where killing the one person would save a million, then it would cause less happiness for the system to not kill them. For then we would be in a system where people feared (and simply caused) mass death because we value one person too much. I cannot give the exact value of how many people are allowed to die (morality is a system just too complex for me to work that accurately with) but we can know not to kill to save one, and to kill to save a billion.

What of selfishness?

Another rule in the system is that happiness you give yourself is not included in the net calculation. If you hurt others to become happy yourself, you are still immoral, because the only happiness you increased was your own. There are times where you can make yourself extremely happy, and harm someone else very little, that may seem okay to do. For example, if you could somehow steal one dollar to become a millionaire. But, while doing this harm is understandable and not vastly immoral (because you do so little of it), it is still somewhat immoral overall.

What of suicide? Does this not take away the happiness of the individual? Yet people still do it. Does this not contradict your theory of all action being aimed at happiness?

No, there is no contradiction. The person in question is merely looking to lose their short term suffering (an overall increase in happiness) through death. They ignore the possibility of long term happiness for short term happiness.

However, since you are likely hurting those close to you for your own happiness, suicide is usually not moral.

But how to you account for situations which appear to have multiple morally correct answers?

Multiple things could result in this. First, we could simply have made an error. Morality is a system even more complex than mathematics, and math is difficult in itself. Mistakes will happen. Secondly, as in math, sometimes multiple answers are both right. For example, the equation:

(x-2)(x+1)=0

allows for x to be equal to 2 or -1. Both are absolutely and objectively correct. Just because there are multiple correct answers doesn't mean that one is wrong and the other is right.

How about a situation with no correct answer?

This happens in math as well. For instance:

x^2 + 1= 0

No real number can satisfy this equation. Just because we have a system in place does not mean that we must be able to create a right answer for every situation the system encounters.

Note: I am aware that the answer to this equation is the imaginary number i. This was just a quick example to show how no right answer can exist without making the system flawed (as we created imaginary numbers to help the mathematic system work, but they don't actually represent a practical object). Another example of an undefined function is 0/0, if that works better for you.

Second note: I do also realize that 0/0 may indeed have a value, and we simply haven't found it yet. This may be true, and can work for situations in morality as well where we do not see a possibly right answer currently, but later tweak or expand the system to uncover it.

How can you simply throw out other peoples definitions for morality?

Other definitions for morality other then the commonly accepted one of dealing with right and wrong is simply redefining the terms. We can argue over different systems, just like we could in math and programming languages, but we cannot actually say that math is a type of tropical fish, or a system concerned with the structure of the English language. The same holds for morality. When someone postulates a different meaning for the word, they should simply make up a new word. They usually don't want to say "I don't believe in morality" though, so they make up a new definition for morality that they do believe in so they don't seem like immoral people.

Isn't it arrogant to say you know morality in an objective sense? Is that not kind of judgemental, like you pretend to be God?

I am treating morality no different than science. If anyone provides examples and such that seem to contradict my theory, I will have it modified or thrown out entirely as the situation calls for it. I even currently would not doubt that it could use some fine tuning. I mean, a year ago I saw morality as completely subjective and was quite humbled when I saw how nonsensical that was. So, I admit I could be wrong, but I will stand by this until chosen otherwise. Also, people should be judged by their actions. It is not judgemental to see evil and call it such. If your judgements are well supported, it is good to be "judgemental".

Why is evil inherently wrong? Why can't I be a jerk?

Evil is immoral by definition. However, morality is merely a man made system like math. You do not need to personally adhere to it. You are a morally bad person if you ignore morality, and must face the consequences of this. If in math, you ignore the system, you fail the class. In morality, you go to jail or are generally disliked and distrusted. There is no objective reason saying you should be moral, only an objective way to be moral if you choose to do so.

Doesn't your theory on what drives humanity conflict with your moral theory? If human nature is selfish and concerned with one's own happiness, and morality is selfless, then why do we find any individuals who act morally?

One would only ever choose to be moral in my system if they truly gained happiness through morality. This could be because it just makes them feel better about themselves, because they hope to avoid punishment (jail or hell for Christians for example), or because they see it benefiting them is some other way.

Do you differentiate between the morality of an action and the person who performs it?

Of course. An action can be evil, while the actor does not become more evil due to it. Inversely, a person may do a good action with ill intent. For example, if I meant to help someone in math, but made a mistake and taught them the wrong formula, my action itself would be immoral because it reduced our net happiness, but I would not be less moral for it because I did not intend to do so. The opposite is true if I intended to give the wrong formula, but happened to give the correct one by accident. The action is moral, as it does increase happiness, but I am still more immoral for doing it.

In short, the morality of an action depends on the net change in happiness it causes. The morality of an agent is based on the net change in happiness they believe they will cause with the action. This portion of my moral system is borrowed from Immanuel Kant in his 'Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals'.




So, what do you think? Do you disagree with morality being a manmade system? Do you believe it to be subjective? Is it not concerned with happiness? I'd love to know.]]> http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=86 Wed, 20 Jun 2007 04:56:19 +0100 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=86
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I1YTdiuXro]]>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I1YTdiuXro]]> http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=85 Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:49:31 +0100 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=85
Good luck to you all, and I hope that contrary to the implications, some good has been found by others here in our discussions, as I found a great deal of good for myself in the perspectives, approaches, and knowledge of others here.

TXStorm]]>
Good luck to you all, and I hope that contrary to the implications, some good has been found by others here in our discussions, as I found a great deal of good for myself in the perspectives, approaches, and knowledge of others here.

TXStorm]]> http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=84 Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:49:46 +0100 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=84
I was browsing blogs at the QuackTrack blog index, and came across this board. I belong to several atheism boards, I just can't get enough of fellowshipping with like-minded non-believers!]]>
I was browsing blogs at the QuackTrack blog index, and came across this board. I belong to several atheism boards, I just can't get enough of fellowshipping with like-minded non-believers!]]> http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=83 Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:05:27 +0100 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=83

Quote:Mary C. Schulken
May 18, 2007 (McClatchy Newspapers - McClatchy-Tribune News Service via COMTEX) --

Merciful Father, hear our prayer: Please let the death of your wayward servant the Rev. Jerry Falwell be a sign that an era has ended, and a new one has begun.

Please.

We know it's up to you to grant forgiveness. We know we need to turn the other cheek. We know (especially here in the South) it's poor form to speak ill of the dead.

But so help me, on the occasion of Falwell's death, I have to confess: I'm having a hard time living up to those ideals.

I know I should try harder. But it would help if we knew that the passing of this fallen man also signals the end of an era when your word was used to divide, blame and demonize on behalf of an agenda found in no book your hand ever wrote.

"I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle all of them who have tried to secularize America _ I point the finger in their face and say, `You helped this happen.'"

Those are the kinds of words I'm talking about, Lord.

After terrorists felled the World Trade Center, smote the Pentagon and crashed a plane in Pennsylvania, killing thousands on Sept. 11, 2001, your wayward servant blamed that attack on his handpicked scapegoats.

The spite slithering out of those words is bad enough.

But even worse, Lord, this man, an ordained minister, has said such things in your name. How can you turn the other cheek to that?

Or this?

"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

You and I both know that's not true. You are not vengeful, you are merciful.

It's just one fallen man's devilish game, played to the emotions of those who are ignorant, afraid or both: Demonize people you disagree with and blame them to whip up people's fears.

He's not the only one, but Falwell made quite a splash doing that sort of thing. His movement, the Moral Majority, colored the landscape of conservative Christian politics with a deep hue of intolerance _ an abomination in your name.

There's nothing wrong with political activism. I figure that's why you gave us brains, Lord. I hope I'm right.

But there's nothing moral about throwing around scary stories at the expense of charity and understanding. There's nothing moral about telling flat-out lies. There's nothing moral about using religion as a weapon against people who don't think the way you do.

Those tactics have driven a wedge as sharp as a serpent's tooth into our political and spiritual life. They've left us arguing about abortion instead of trying to care for unwanted children. They've left us condemning sexuality instead of fighting a global AIDS explosion.

They've left us divided, and pointing fingers, when we ought to be sorting out differences together.

"I shudder to think where the country would be right now if the religious right had not evolved." Falwell said that in 1987 when he stepped down as leader of the Moral Majority.

Yes, and many Christians shudder at where the country is thanks to snakehandlers like Falwell.

We commend to you, Lord, the soul of your wayward servant. He had a profound influence on politics and culture in the past two decades. But he led us by dividing us, and invoked your name to do it.

Please, let that era be over. It needs to pass into dust.

Let me add from my Jewish perspective - He is the one who said, "God doesn't hear the prayer of a Jew". I wonder if he included the prayers of Jesus in that comment.

ABOUT THE WRITER

Mary C. Schulken is a Charlotte Observer associate editor. Readers may write to her at P.O. Box 30308, Charlotte, N.C. 28230-0308, or e-mail her at mschulken@charlotteobserver.com.

]]>

Quote:Mary C. Schulken
May 18, 2007 (McClatchy Newspapers - McClatchy-Tribune News Service via COMTEX) --

Merciful Father, hear our prayer: Please let the death of your wayward servant the Rev. Jerry Falwell be a sign that an era has ended, and a new one has begun.

Please.

We know it's up to you to grant forgiveness. We know we need to turn the other cheek. We know (especially here in the South) it's poor form to speak ill of the dead.

But so help me, on the occasion of Falwell's death, I have to confess: I'm having a hard time living up to those ideals.

I know I should try harder. But it would help if we knew that the passing of this fallen man also signals the end of an era when your word was used to divide, blame and demonize on behalf of an agenda found in no book your hand ever wrote.

"I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle all of them who have tried to secularize America _ I point the finger in their face and say, `You helped this happen.'"

Those are the kinds of words I'm talking about, Lord.

After terrorists felled the World Trade Center, smote the Pentagon and crashed a plane in Pennsylvania, killing thousands on Sept. 11, 2001, your wayward servant blamed that attack on his handpicked scapegoats.

The spite slithering out of those words is bad enough.

But even worse, Lord, this man, an ordained minister, has said such things in your name. How can you turn the other cheek to that?

Or this?

"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

You and I both know that's not true. You are not vengeful, you are merciful.

It's just one fallen man's devilish game, played to the emotions of those who are ignorant, afraid or both: Demonize people you disagree with and blame them to whip up people's fears.

He's not the only one, but Falwell made quite a splash doing that sort of thing. His movement, the Moral Majority, colored the landscape of conservative Christian politics with a deep hue of intolerance _ an abomination in your name.

There's nothing wrong with political activism. I figure that's why you gave us brains, Lord. I hope I'm right.

But there's nothing moral about throwing around scary stories at the expense of charity and understanding. There's nothing moral about telling flat-out lies. There's nothing moral about using religion as a weapon against people who don't think the way you do.

Those tactics have driven a wedge as sharp as a serpent's tooth into our political and spiritual life. They've left us arguing about abortion instead of trying to care for unwanted children. They've left us condemning sexuality instead of fighting a global AIDS explosion.

They've left us divided, and pointing fingers, when we ought to be sorting out differences together.

"I shudder to think where the country would be right now if the religious right had not evolved." Falwell said that in 1987 when he stepped down as leader of the Moral Majority.

Yes, and many Christians shudder at where the country is thanks to snakehandlers like Falwell.

We commend to you, Lord, the soul of your wayward servant. He had a profound influence on politics and culture in the past two decades. But he led us by dividing us, and invoked your name to do it.

Please, let that era be over. It needs to pass into dust.

Let me add from my Jewish perspective - He is the one who said, "God doesn't hear the prayer of a Jew". I wonder if he included the prayers of Jesus in that comment.

ABOUT THE WRITER

Mary C. Schulken is a Charlotte Observer associate editor. Readers may write to her at P.O. Box 30308, Charlotte, N.C. 28230-0308, or e-mail her at mschulken@charlotteobserver.com.

]]> http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=82 Sat, 02 Jun 2007 05:00:39 +0100 http://forum.wayofthemind.org/showthread.php?tid=82
http://www.lfb.com/index.php?stocknumber=PH9185

GOD IS NOT GREAT (H)
How Religion Poisons Everything
by Christopher Hitchens
Twelve, 2007, hardcover

The blurb sounds interesting enough that I am likely going to pick it up..]]>
http://www.lfb.com/index.php?stocknumber=PH9185

GOD IS NOT GREAT (H)
How Religion Poisons Everything
by Christopher Hitchens
Twelve, 2007, hardcover

The blurb sounds interesting enough that I am likely going to pick it up..]]>