Moralistic Atheists Are Dumb

[and2000x]

Perhaps you are confused Tiassa, what I a meant to say, is that with morality everyone is powerless. They are paralyzed.

Now, should I guess that it is only the successful minorities who weren't hit by their parents? For I can't imagine whence comes the notion that abused children are abusive themselves.

I am not talking about abusing children. I'm talking about disciplining them. A person abuses a child because:

A.) Their child is acting badly.
B.) Their child is acting badly because the parents couldn't transmit values to them in the first place, thus using blind violence to solve it.
C.) The parent is emotionally damaged (under stress, psychotic, alcholic, etc) and takes it out on a child.

I speak of children who had incompetent parents who could not teach values and would not even have the balls to stop their own child from doing something stupid.

 

[one_raven]

Doc Lou,

I am curious how far you take this viewpoint...

For example, would you support forced eugenics?
What if it involves forcing people to have sex against their will (such as what seems to happen often in the animal kingdom)?
Would you support killing off the infirmed, retarded, diseased, old?

How about cannibalism?

Allowing your smaller/weaker offspring behind to die?
Perhaps even killing them yourself?

What about technology?
Things that obviously don't happen in the animal kingdom, but will "better" our species?
Such as artificial genetic modification, for example.
What if a scientist wants to modify a people that live near the water to have webbed feet, or require less oxygen or perhaps have gills... whatever.

Where (if anywhere) do you draw the line between your "moral code" and what you perceive in the animal kingdom?

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I don't draw a line.
As i said, i didn't "invent" this moral code, i just recognised it, so yeah its not for me to draw a line. I'm just saying thats what I suspect the real "moral code" is, Including everything you mentioned and more, and I would feel more comfortable with the state of humanity if these morals weren't being broken.
Including all the "nasty" stuff, because I know it only seems nasty to me because i am a subject to it, i AM a living organism, i know everythings not supposed to be fine and dandy for me.
I'm trying to find the objective morality, obviously if I start excluding aspects I find unattractive, or even unnecessarry, I cease to be objective.

Ofcourse that wouldn't be "it", i don't think we would function well if we just followed the universal moral code and nothing more, there would be one specifically for our species. Just as there is for EVERY SINGLE other species. One specialised to our behaviour and taxonomy etc.
I just don't know what that is exactly, there aren't many wild humans around to observe, I know the kind of thing it would be.
Like hamsters for example will expose their testicles after losing a fight, it is immoral in hamster society to bite your fallen rivals nuts off. On top of that they would have other rules, probably not very complex.

We are social animals which automatically complicates the moral code. You'll find extremely complex moral codes in species like baboons for example, because they have large societies. Their moral code takes care of eugenics, as does the lion moral code. For some animals eugenics is taken care of by predation and the struggle of life alone.
But we would be more like the lion and baboon and chimpanzee societies, because predation and struggle simply can't take care of it adequately within species that don't have much predation or struggle.

I have some idea of what some aspects of the homo-sapien moral code would be from observing my unknowing friends and how they interact.
Humans are actually alot like wolves I've decided. But not exactly.
Studies will continue

 

[and2000x]

In my personal opinion I think morals should be based on:
1. That which advances the health and physical state mankind is
right. That which degenerates it is wrong.
2. That which advances the mental and creative aspects of mankind is right.
3. That which mantains equilibrium with external nature is good, while that which jumps to extremes is wrong. (obviously human civilization won't be completely equalized in relation to nature, but its dangerously out of sync as of present.)

A Eugenic society would be rather interesting. We could selectively breed for:
1. High intelligence- People to form government/business caste
2. High creativity- People to form philosophical/science/artistic class.
3. High physical ability- people to form warrior/sports caste.
4. High physical beauty- all castes

Then we can find those who have all of these aspects to a certain degree, and breed specifically to mass produce these types.

I personally would fall in the high creativity, with subpar attributes in intelligence and physical ability. I am certainly not that beautiful.