Religions are morally wrong.

[James R]

Why are other circumstances relevant? Rationally speaking, here is a source of energy that you do not need to work for. The easiest decision if one ignores unnecessary social taboos one is brainwashed into.

Well, let's look at just one suggestion from secular philosophy: Kant's "categorical imperative". What he said was that something should be considered "good" or morally acceptable only if one could wish that it become a general rule, applicable to all.

Let's apply that to eating your babies. Suppose that we were to propose a general rule that all mothers should follow: "Every mother should eat her babies, because they are a source of energy you do not need to work for."

What would be the result of this proposed rule? Answer: no more humans, after a relatively short period of time. And so, a rule apparently based on self-interest is shown to be ultimately detrimental to self-interest.

Perhaps you think this rule would be fine in the short term, and we shouldn't worry about the long term. Then, you are proposing another general moral principle "Always think only in the short-term." But now apply Kant's standard to that rule...

See how this works?

 

[S.A.M.]

Well, let's look at just one suggestion from secular philosophy: Kant's "categorical imperative". What he said was that something should be considered "good" or morally acceptable only if one could wish that it become a general rule, applicable to all.

Let's apply that to eating your babies. Suppose that we were to propose a general rule that all mothers should follow: "Every mother should eat her babies, because they are a source of energy you do not need to work for."

What would be the result of this proposed rule? Answer: no more humans, after a relatively short period of time. And so, a rule apparently based on self-interest is shown to be ultimately detrimental to self-interest.

Perhaps you think this rule would be fine in the short term, and we shouldn't worry about the long term. Then, you are proposing another general moral principle "Always think only in the short-term." But now apply Kant's standard to that rule...

See how this works?

How about: Every mother should eat her babies, if she is starving and unable to provide for them.

Would that work? In the long term? One need not even deliberately starve the infants to weaken and kill them as in the case of the bush babies.

 

[James R]

How about: Every mother should eat her babies, if she is starving and unable to provide for them.

The main problem with this is that it does not give [enc]equal consideration[/enc] to the interests of the babies. It privileges the mother, for no reason that you have articulated so far. Moreover, it seems to deny that babies have [enc]intrinsic value[/enc].

Also, you still haven't specified whether the mothers concerned might have access to other potential food sources.

No moral decision is ever taken in a vacuum. Hard moral choices, in particular, are hard because they involve weighing up competing moral imperatives.

This is why more detail is required in your scenario. You simply haven't given enough information about the hypothetical surrounding circumstances for anybody to be able to give a rational, hard-and-fast response.

I'm not sure, but perhaps you're trying to impose a "one size fits all" rule here. Such would be typical of a religious approach. A typical religion would probably just say "Mothers must never eat their babies, under any circumstances." That's an easy, knee-jerk answer, but one that would be completely unhelpful in a real situation where eating a baby may appear to be one of a restricted range of viable options.

Religious dictates like this assume that grown adults are children, unable to reason about complex situations. Instead, they need to be told what to do, in simple, unambiguous terms, because they fundamentally can't be trusted to make moral choices on their own.

 

[S.A.M.]

The main problem with this is that it does not give [enc]equal consideration[/enc] to the interests of the babies. It privileges the mother, for no reason that you have articulated so far. Moreover, it seems to deny that babies have [enc]intrinsic value[/enc].

Also, you still haven't specified whether the mothers concerned might have access to other potential food sources.

No moral decision is ever taken in a vacuum. Hard moral choices, in particular, are hard because they involve weighing up competing moral imperatives.

This is why more detail is required in your scenario. You simply haven't given enough information about the hypothetical surrounding circumstances for anybody to be able to give a rational, hard-and-fast response.

I'm not sure, but perhaps you're trying to impose a "one size fits all" rule here. Such would be typical of a religious approach. A typical religion would probably just say "Mothers must never eat their babies, under any circumstances." That's an easy, knee-jerk answer, but one that would be completely unhelpful in a real situation where eating a baby may appear to be one of a restricted range of viable options.

Religious dictates like this assume that grown adults are children, unable to reason about complex situations. Instead, they need to be told what to do, in simple, unambiguous terms, because they fundamentally can't be trusted to make moral choices on their own.

Now you've lost me in a moral rigamarole. I'm asking about rational reasoning here, not a seminar on morality. Imagine I am a mouse and tell me again. Or do you think a human baby has greater intrinsic value than a mouse baby?

 

[one_raven]

I think humans have the capacity of abstract thought, reason, foresight and imagination that mice lack.
Hence, morality does not apply to mice - as it implies a decision making process which requires all the above.

 

[S.A.M.]

I think humans have the capacity of abstract thought, reason, foresight and imagination that mice lack.
Hence, morality does not apply to mice - as it implies a decision making process which requires all the above.

So morality is the result of imaginative decision making?

What aspect of the above scenario do you see as requiring greater imagination?

Cannibalism as a ritual has been practised in many cultures. So why not for necessity? What makes it good or bad?

 

[EmmZ]

I don't know which God my mice worship. I was asking for the rational explanation.

That would be Apollo Smintheus.

 

[Gustav]

Its the quickest way to obtain the required nutrients. Babies cannot get away, saves time and effort too.

what is particularly rational about getting punished for eating your babies?
do you think it is only your perspective that matters? are you the sole adult human left standing?

you will be judged insane

rationality is not simply self determined since one has no way of judging one's
own competence. comparisons, analogies, an evaluation of arguments, an examination of the conceptual underpinnings of the premises; then, thru a concurrence of opinion, will an act be deemed rational. or not. basic issues like your scenario is never left up to any one individual to decide. the whole must benefit

at best, your shit works in exceptional circumstances

basically it boils down to...
who the fuck are you to make that call?

i know
a coward
cook an adult
the meat will last you long long time
a bit more more rational that a baby snack to assuage the pangs of hunger,ja?

 

[S.A.M.]

Adults will fight back, that is unnecessary waste of energy.

I'm trying to answer my question: what is morality?

 

[Gustav]

So morality is the result of imaginative decision making?

What aspect of the above scenario do you see as requiring greater imagination?

Cannibalism as a ritual has been practised in many cultures. So why not for necessity? What makes it good or bad?

"imaginative"? strawman! "greater imagination"? i reject your premise that rests on a strawman

cannibalism was never widespread. it was mostly ritualistic in nature
for chrissakes, you cannot eat each other into goddamn extinction

again, we all understand and allow for special or extenuating circumstances.
yet, listen goddamn carefully.....exceptions do not make the goddamn rule!

kapeesh?

 

[ronan]

There is no absolute good or bad,
you are your own judge.

eat your baby if you have to
but personnally, a good action for me would be to give your own flesh to your babies
of course in the case of the mouse, she has more than one and her flesh could be insufficient to make feed them enough to make them grow enough to enjoy life and reproduce. so maybe for her it is better to eat one (one who is handicaped for some reason) and then be able to feed the other.

Imagine a train with 200 passengers is going to crash on another train (200 passengers) killing most likely 400 passengers
You are the one who can change the direction of the train whcih will make the train collide only on 1 person that you see is on the other direction.

What is the best : make one action (changing the direction of the train) to kill one person
or no action to let the trains collide and have 400 deaths


imagine now that the person on the track is your child, or your mother
can we blame you do not have do any action?

 

[Gustav]

ja
an everyday goddamn occurrence

listen up, dolt
the justice system understands that
yet it is not carte blanche to offer up your own particular brand of rationale that is in discordance with prevailing thought and expect to get a free pass

bullshit!
you will hang!

exceptions do not make the goddamn rule

frikkin kids and their cancer of relativism
when you get busted, you all cry like little babies

 

[ronan]

gustav, who are you answering?

The example I was talking is of course not a daily life occurrence, it is to simple and not likely to have happen but the point is to show a situation where morality rules are under attack.
in the sense that any moral rules we can have will encounter such situation where it has to bug like a computer encountering a situation where is was not programed to answer and finish in a infinite loop.

It indicate that moral rules (if it has to exist) has to be soft (not rigid).


I would add that for me good is when you do an action without thinking of yourself and expecting anything. (be killing someone or killing yourself for someone)

 

[lightgigantic]

Because they judge god.

They judge 'him' by believing words in books are directly from 'him'.

They judge god by believing particular things about 'him'.

Stuff like that.

Just a thought.

and if they judge god as being deserving of obedience, what is exactly morally wrong with that?
Who has ever been held as occupying the moral high ground by being bereft of judgment?
(actually being bereft of judgment is the quality of a fool)

 

[James R]

SAM:

Now you've lost me in a moral rigamarole. I'm asking about rational reasoning here, not a seminar on morality.

But that's the thing about rational reasoning - it is based on logic and analysis. If you prefer to base your morals on authority or gut instinct instead, then you're not being rational. But you asked for rational morals. Didn't you?

Imagine I am a mouse and tell me again. Or do you think a human baby has greater intrinsic value than a mouse baby?

I don't see the idea of recognising intrinsic value as being a ranking process. Rather, it is a basic recognition, from which flows certain moral duties.

Cannibalism as a ritual has been practised in many cultures. So why not for necessity? What makes it good or bad?

Cannibalism for necessity hasn't generally been considered absolutely wrong. Nobody blamed those guys in the Andes plane crash for eating their dead teammates. They had to do it to survive. This is a good example of where "one size fits all" doesn't work, don't you think?


one_raven:

I think humans have the capacity of abstract thought, reason, foresight and imagination that mice lack.
Hence, morality does not apply to mice - as it implies a decision making process which requires all the above.

Are you saying that human beings owe no moral duty to other animals? Or just to mice? Or what? And why?

 

[wesmorris]

I do believe that religions are morally wrong, for different reasons, but I don't see where you get that by believing words in books are from God, they are judging God.

i suppose i only mean religion as taken literally, as in 'religious texts directly represent facts about their related deities'.

i dont' think to believe in god is necessarily wrong, but to assign it specific properties beyond its general definition or claim deeds in its name is to judge it, IMO. certainly to espouse a book claiming rules pertaining to god is judging god by saying "god says this" and thus assigning one's self authority equivalent to that which is beyond comprehension.

Also, even if that is true, why is judging God necessarily immoral?

Because by definition, one cannot relate to the timeless and with no frame of reference for commonality, judgement is uhm... well, unwarranted?

Religion usurps the authority of that which it purports to uphold. To me, that's wrong. It relies on the authority of god but in doing so - steals that authority. Meh I'm beat.

 

[wesmorris]

and if they judge god as being deserving of obedience, what is exactly morally wrong with that?

The very notion of obedience is morally repugnant to me.

Who has ever been held as occupying the moral high ground by being bereft of judgment?
(actually being bereft of judgment is the quality of a fool)

Depends on what you're judging. The dog doesn't judge his master. Obedience is so fucking icky. ICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Ack. phlahgnyahflickingerk.

I'll see if I can come with a better explanation, pardon.

 

[wesmorris]

Now you've lost me in a moral rigamarole. I'm asking about rational reasoning here, not a seminar on morality. Imagine I am a mouse and tell me again. Or do you think a human baby has greater intrinsic value than a mouse baby?

Don't you think it's really more relative? I human baby has no intrinsic value but to humans. Other animals may value it in a very different or rather similar way, but species tend to value their species first. Simple enough idnit?

 

[w1z4rd]

and if they judge god as being deserving of obedience, what is exactly morally wrong with that?
Who has ever been held as occupying the moral high ground by being bereft of judgment?
(actually being bereft of judgment is the quality of a fool)

Sounds like you are describing faith there.. .faith is the unquestionable belief in something with little or no evidence. Its the complete absence of reason and skepticism.

... and we all know how important faith is the pious. :>

Those who know the least, follow the best.

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM:
But that's the thing about rational reasoning - it is based on logic and analysis. If you prefer to base your morals on authority or gut instinct instead, then you're not being rational. But you asked for rational morals. Didn't you?

Yeah, and I think the mice that eat the weak babies are being entirely rational. So also the undernourished mice who eat all their babies.

I don't see the idea of recognising intrinsic value as being a ranking process. Rather, it is a basic recognition, from which flows certain moral duties.

Thats putting the cart before the horse. What moral duties? What makes them moral?

Cannibalism for necessity hasn't generally been considered absolutely wrong. Nobody blamed those guys in the Andes plane crash for eating their dead teammates. They had to do it to survive. This is a good example of where "one size fits all" doesn't work, don't you think?
?

So you'd absolutely understand if in times of famine, mothers would eat surplus babies, right?

Don't you think it's really more relative? I human baby has no intrinsic value but to humans. Other animals may value it in a very different or rather similar way, but species tend to value their species first. Simple enough idnit?

No, its not. Humans kill humans all the time. Humans torture humans, there is child abuse, rape, starvation of children in third world countries, parents pimping out and selling their kids. Its not really anything self evident. Mice who eat their babies when they are undernourished, galagos who eat their babies when they are stressed are not demonstrating any species specific intrinsic value either. Its an artificial construct.