Question For Athiests About Morality

[malikshtar87]

I have a questions to all athiests out there. How do you decide what is the right decision and what is the wrong one when facing a choice?

Do you have a certain moral code or principals that you follow that distinguish right from wrong?

Or do you have no moral code/principals at all?

Do you just go by what society deems is right?

Feel free to share your thoughts.

[iDevonian]

I have a questions to all athiests out there. How do you decide what is the right decision and what is the wrong one when facing a choice?

Do you have a certain moral code or principals that you follow that distinguish right from wrong?

Or do you have no moral code/principals at all?

Do you just go by what society deems is right?

Feel free to share your thoughts.

I do what feels right. I try to be a good person, and to help others while simultaneously helping myself. And for the most part, I generally agree with society on what is good and what is bad. For example, speeding in a vehicle. It can be dangerous, so I am comfortable with following a law which states not to speed.

[~Zee Zee~]

They have no soul. They make a decision based on whether or not the ground hog sees shadow. Edited May 7, 2012 by LebanesePrincess

[iDevonian]

They have no soul. They make a decision by waiting for the ground hog to see his shadow.

I actually did a study on that groundhog. He has...i forget the exact percentage, but that groundhog fails at his predictions, something like 47% of the time. So, you may as well flip a coin if you want to predict the beginning of spring.

[Dawud.]

I do what works out the best for me and ruins everybody else's lives in the process.

[samarobin0]

I know a few people who claim to be atheists but in my opinion I feel the reason they ignore their heart and love for God is just due to revolting & anger. It isnt natural for anything to deny God even if they believe in God in different forms... Look at the indigenous people of the Amazon, they have never even seen a book or heard the preaching of God but they feel his presence & believe in the beauty of a higher power.. I think even people who claim to be atheists make their decisions based on the right or wrong that is built inside of us from God..

[malikshtar87]

I do what feels right. I try to be a good person, and to help others while simultaneously helping myself. And for the most part, I generally agree with society on what is good and what is bad. For example, speeding in a vehicle. It can be dangerous, so I am comfortable with following a law which states not to speed.

After reading what you wrote, a few ideas and questions arise that I'd like your feedback on.

#1 There was an earlier post that you made in another forum in which you said, " its hard to believe in evil if there is no supernatural realm or anything like that. The same goes with "good" or "morals"."

So you do not believe in the existance of Good in its absolute sense, but yet you try to help others and yourself by doing that which is good. Isn't that a contradiction? You just said that you dont believe in good. Although you may say that good is relative...it depends on the person. First of all, if it is relative, what is it relative in relation to? There must be an absolute good for it to be in relation to. How then do we measure right from wrong, good from evil? Second, If it depends on the person, doesnt that beg an anarchistic approach towards society, where people are free to do what they want when they want and at the expense of anything they want. Thats a very egoistic mentality that causes harm to society....but it doesn't matter as long as YOU are fine with it, society doesn't matter.

#2 You said," I do what feels right". Now there's two ways for me to interpret that.

a. With an emphasis on the 'I' in your sentence, which entails the egoistic, anarchistic mentality that I described above. To add onto the point that i made, wouldn't a dictator like Stalin, Hitler, or Saddam Hussein be excused of the crimes they committed, if they used this mentality of "I" do whatever "I" feel is right? In their opinion they didn't do anything wrong, so why should they be punished for their atrocities.

I do not believe that this is you view, so this leaves me with the second interpretation.

b. With an emphasis on the "feel" in your sentence. You do what "feels" right. That means that there is a certain sense of satisfction when you do a good act, and quite possibly a sense of remorse when you do a wrong one. Any normal sane person, if they gave to charity, fed a homeless man or did any good act, would feel that same sense of satisfaction and sense of doing a good thing. So this "feeling" must be something that is found in all human beings. It is a universal concept found in each and every sane human being on this planet. And for us to feel that sense of satisfaction, there must be found within us a receptor that analyzes all the outside information and realizes that what we have just done is something good. And for it to realize that we have done a good act, that receptor must know what is good and evil itself. It is that receptor which we call the "soul",and it is found in each and every human being, and one of its characteristics is that it is able to know good from evil. And this very concept is revealed in the Quran when God says:

وَنَفۡسٍ۬ وَمَا سَوَّٮٰهَا (٧) فَأَلۡهَمَهَا فُجُورَهَا وَتَقۡوَٮٰهَا (٨) قَدۡ أَفۡلَحَ مَن زَكَّٮٰهَا (٩) وَقَدۡ خَابَ مَن دَسَّٮٰهَا (١٠

And a soul and Him Who perfected it (7) And inspired it (with conscience of) what is wrong for it and (what is) right for it. (8) He is indeed successful who causeth it to grow, (9) And he is indeed a failure who stunteth it. (10)

So, Good does exist and the soul itself is conscious of what is good and what is not good.

#3 You said that you "for the most part, I generally agree with society on what is good and what is bad".

-So if you lived in the United States prior to the abolition of slavery, wouldn't you say that slavery was good? Most Americans in that society did.

-If you lived in Germany in the 1940's, wouldn't you say that ethnic cleansing was good? Most Germans in that society did.

-If you live on Earth today, wouldn't you say that believing in God in good? Most human beings on Earth do.

Note: This not directly addressed to you idevonian, but I have heard some athiests say that their definition of evil is to do an act which causes harm. And good is any act that does not cause harm or prevents it. Then I ask these athiests, if they were in a car accident and their leg broke, and the pain was excruciating, why don't they just kill themselves? Isn't that eliminating the harm? Why does it matter if they die today, tomorrow, or ten years from now. There is nothing there after they die. So why don't they save themselves the pain and kill themselves? They don't do it beacuse they value their lives. They realize that there are still things that they want to accomplish in life. And it is at that exact point when they realize that there is a purpose in their lives. Why would they want life if there's no purpose? Why do they want to make families if there's no purpose? Why do they want to do good if there's no purpose? There must be a purpose because if there wasn't we would be living in a chaotic society running around for no reason like a bunch a chickens with there heads cut off.

Wasalam

[iDevonian]

ah, you type quite a bit. Ill break it down.

After reading what you wrote, a few ideas and questions arise that I'd like your feedback on.

#1 There was an earlier post that you made in another forum in which you said, " its hard to believe in evil if there is no supernatural realm or anything like that. The same goes with "good" or "morals"."

So you do not believe in the existance of Good in its absolute sense, but yet you try to help others and yourself by doing that which is good. Isn't that a contradiction? You just said that you dont believe in good. Although you may say that good is relative...it depends on the person. First of all, if it is relative, what is it relative in relation to? There must be an absolute good for it to be in relation to. How then do we measure right from wrong, good from evil? Second, If it depends on the person, doesnt that beg an anarchistic approach towards society, where people are free to do what they want when they want and at the expense of anything they want. Thats a very egoistic mentality that causes harm to society....but it doesn't matter as long as YOU are fine with it, society doesn't matter.

Well, I dont believe in good and evil, in the sense of...satan and god fighting eachother and...ya know. Theres good and evil in the religious sense, and then there is good and bad in reality. No I dont believe in satan and him whispering bad temptations in our ear. But I do believe in actions that can hurt yourself and others. And in regards to good. I dont believe in angels, but I still believe in things that we can do to help eachother. And I wouldnt say these things are ultimately relative. There is nothing relative about dropping a nuclear bomb on millions of innocent people for no apparent reason. I wouldnt use the word evil, but I measure good actions from bad, based on how they effect you and others around you. Helping people would be good, harming them would be bad. And you mentioned doing what you want, where you want etc... Well, yes, I do what I want, when I want and how I want. But society does matter because they also in part dictate how I do things.

I gave the example of speeding while driving in a car. I drive how fast I want, when I want and where I want. But, I have no reason to speed to my destination if it means risking my life or others. I have no reason to be against speeding laws if those laws also protect my own safety. So, I do...do what I want, when I want and where I want, and how I want. But I do so within reason. Society does matter because I am a part of society. And If I am society, and I matter, then society matters.

#2 You said," I do what feels right". Now there's two ways for me to interpret that.

a. With an emphasis on the 'I' in your sentence, which entails the egoistic, anarchistic mentality that I described above. To add onto the point that i made, wouldn't a dictator like Stalin, Hitler, or Saddam Hussein be excused of the crimes they committed, if they used this mentality of "I" do whatever "I" feel is right? In their opinion they didn't do anything wrong, so why should they be punished for their atrocities.

They did do what they felt was right. However, it appears that what they had done, greatly harmed many others. If a bully beats up a kid and takes his lunch, the bully may think it was a good decision as well, however the bully harmed others, and caused a conflict of interests. So you have to be mindful of others. If someone beat me up and took my lunch, id probably punish the bully too.

I do not believe that this is you view, so this leaves me with the second interpretation.

b. With an emphasis on the "feel" in your sentence. You do what "feels" right. That means that there is a certain sense of satisfction when you do a good act, and quite possibly a sense of remorse when you do a wrong one. Any normal sane person, if they gave to charity, fed a homeless man or did any good act, would feel that same sense of satisfaction and sense of doing a good thing. So this "feeling" must be something that is found in all human beings. It is a universal concept found in each and every sane human being on this planet. And for us to feel that sense of satisfaction, there must be found within us a receptor that analyzes all the outside information and realizes that what we have just done is something good. And for it to realize that we have done a good act, that receptor must know what is good and evil itself. It is that receptor which we call the "soul",and it is found in each and every human being, and one of its characteristics is that it is able to know good from evil. And this very concept is revealed in the Quran when God says:

وَنَفۡسٍ۬ وَمَا سَوَّٮٰهَا (٧) فَأَلۡهَمَهَا فُجُورَهَا وَتَقۡوَٮٰهَا (٨) قَدۡ أَفۡلَحَ مَن زَكَّٮٰهَا (٩) وَقَدۡ خَابَ مَن دَسَّٮٰهَا (١٠

And a soul and Him Who perfected it (7) And inspired it (with conscience of) what is wrong for it and (what is) right for it. (8) He is indeed successful who causeth it to grow, (9) And he is indeed a failure who stunteth it. (10)

So, Good does exist and the soul itself is conscious of what is good and what is not good.

Well, Im sure hitler and stalin also felt "satisfied" with what they were doing too. So I wouldnt say that that feeling is perfect in detecting "good and evil". And I wouldnt call it a soul, id call it a natural mentality which includes things like...empathy. Then it sounds like you just moved on to your own conclusion. I dont mind talking about these things, however I do mind people who I disagree with, telling me what is and isnt.

#3 You said that you "for the most part, I generally agree with society on what is good and what is bad".

-So if you lived in the United States prior to the abolition of slavery, wouldn't you say that slavery was good? Most Americans in that society did.

-If you lived in Germany in the 1940's, wouldn't you say that ethnic cleansing was good? Most Germans in that society did.

-If you live on Earth today, wouldn't you say that believing in God in good? Most human beings on Earth do.

- Thats certainly possible.

- Also possible.

- Thats debatable, but yes its possible.

Ill also add. I believe that how we live, is a learning process. We have to learn from our past, to promote a better future. So while people prior to the abolition of slavery may have thought of it as good. We have learned over time that black people arent inferior animals, nor are they less human or half human or anything like that. So, now that we know what slavery of those times truly is, and we now in todays time live in multiracial societies where we have good friends and family that are african. We now have little to no reason to think of slavery as a good thing. The same goes for ethnic cleansing of jews. The same goes, in my opinion for the belief in God. Greeks believing in Poseidon was considered good to them, but obviously times have changed and we have learned a thing or two about the ocean and we know that Poseidon doesnt control it.

Note: This not directly addressed to you idevonian, but I have heard some athiests say that their definition of evil is to do an act which causes harm. And good is any act that does not cause harm or prevents it. Then I ask these athiests, if they were in a car accident and their leg broke, and the pain was excruciating, why don't they just kill themselves? Isn't that eliminating the harm? Why does it matter if they die today, tomorrow, or ten years from now. There is nothing there after they die. So why don't they save themselves the pain and kill themselves? They don't do it beacuse they value their lives. They realize that there are still things that they want to accomplish in life. And it is at that exact point when they realize that there is a purpose in their lives. Why would they want life if there's no purpose? Why do they want to make families if there's no purpose? Why do they want to do good if there's no purpose? There must be a purpose because if there wasn't we would be living in a chaotic society running around for no reason like a bunch a chickens with there heads cut off.

Wasalam

Killing yourself would only cause more harm to your genetic lineage. I think that may be the answer youre seeking from me. There is in fact something here after we die. It is our progeny. The genes within us are the same ones our great ancestors passed on to us. Their lives may have vanished in history and are now forgotten, but we continue to live today, and in a way, they still live within us.

If my ancestor broke his leg and simply killed himself, he or she may not have ever had a child to eventually have me. Killing yourself is very painful too of course. Not that I would know, but I would assume the emotional stress of being suicidal would outweigh the emotional stress of having a broken leg. Soccor players break their legs, but they go eat ice cream in the hospital, heal and go back and play the game again. But to kill yourself, is much worst. I would imagine, much more emotionally difficult.

Edited May 8, 2012 by iDevonian

[Aly ReZa]

atheist dun has ethics

[Incognito]

Talking about morals with an atheist is trying to watch an animal with no claws try to find its way out of a hole.

Very few take the course which is right, nihilism. It doesn't seem to attract to them, although it is the only ethical stance an atheist could rationally have. And this is a testament

I do what feels right. I try to be a good person, and to help others while simultaneously helping myself. And for the most part, I generally agree with society on what is good and what is bad. For example, speeding in a vehicle. It can be dangerous, so I am comfortable with following a law which states not to speed.

[MysticKnight]

Morality proves a metaphysical basis and an eternal basis. This is intuitive knowledge everyone has.

An Atheist has two choices if he wants to remain Atheist.

1) Accept that intuition, so reject morality as being real.

This is illogical, since morality being real is a knowledge everyone has. Furthermore it's illogical to reject we have knowledge out of knowledge morality.

You are denying morality by acknowledging a knowledge given of it that it must have metaphysical and eternal basis.

2) Reject that intuition, so accept morality as being real, but with no metaphysical/divine/eternal basis.

This is actually less illogical that moral nihilism. It's easier to deny that intuitive knowledge than morality being real.

The logical position is in fact to accept morality is real, and that morality needs metaphysical/eternal basis.

Therefore the logical position is to accept God.

The most illogical is moral nihilism. Then comes believing morality without God. Then comes the most logical, which is to believe in both God and morality.

[iDevonian]

Talking about morals with an atheist is trying to watch an animal with no claws try to find its way out of a hole.

Very few take the course which is right, nihilism. It doesn't seem to attract to them, although it is the only ethical stance an atheist could rationally have. And this is a testament

I don't necessarily believe that there is no purpose in life. I'm not sure if that is what you're implying. Id prefer to say that I simply don't know if there is or is not a purpose in life. And if there is, I wouldn't know what it is.

[Incognito]

I don't necessarily believe that there is no purpose in life. I'm not sure if that is what you're implying. Id prefer to say that I simply don't know if there is or is not a purpose in life. And if there is, I wouldn't know what it is.

I wasnt talking about a purpose of life, i was talking about morality.

The most illogical is moral nihilism. Then comes believing morality without God. Then comes the most logical, which is to believe in both God and morality.

I would have put that order differently.

The most reasonable is to have morality and God, then moral nihilism, then morality without God. What is your reason for stating moral nihilism to be the most illogical?

[MysticKnight]

The most reasonable is to have morality and God, then moral nihilism, then morality without God. What is your reason for stating moral nihilism to be the most illogical?

I stated in my post.

[malikshtar87]

idevonian

If someone beat me up and took my lunch, id probably punish the bully too.

So you belive in the necessity of justice. Its is this exact reason why God does exist. Do deliver punishment to those that have wronged on this Earth and reward those that have done good.

Well, Im sure hitler and stalin also felt "satisfied" with what they were doing too.

Thats jumping to conclusions. You dont know if Stalin ever felt remorse for what he had done or if he repented. Again, the majority of human beings on this planet know that murder is wrong. Why is it that they know this? My question is how do we as humans judge whether something is right or wrong? If we do just what society tells us then thats illogical because we have seen the evils that our society puts out every day.

If we look at slavery in the US.If hundreds of years ago it was not an evil act, then what is it that allowed Americans to change their mentatlity towards blacks? People rose to fight that injustice( which you would call good at the time). So at that time they were doing something evil. What was it that pushed them to sacrifice their lives for the abolishment of slavery? They somehow KNEW that slavery was wrong. Even tho society told them it was right, they knew it was wrong. My question to you is what is it that made them know at that time, when slavery was good, that is was indeed not good? They must have had some characteristic found within them that allowed them to differentiate what was wrong from what was right. If it was not for this trait, Americans would still have slavery til this day. But we see that societies have evolved to become better than previous ones. And it is because of ths intrinsic trait to differentiate between right and wrong that allowsd society to morally evolve. This is very similar to the theory of evolution by natural selection. Within this theory we find that no evolution can take place unless that trait is found within the organism. For example, rats connot evolve into flying species because there are no trait of growing wings found within their DNA that can be selected for when certain circumstances arise. Likewise human society cannot evolve into a better one if the trait of morality is not found within it.

Killing yourself would only cause more harm to your genetic lineage.

Why would you care about your progeny? Youre dead. You dont exist anymore. Why would you care about them? Also, why would you care about others in this world even when you are still alive? Youre going to fall into non-existance anyways. Its only a matter of time. Why care?

[Incognito]

I stated in my post.

Then I did not understand how you got to it. Could you explain it again

[iDevonian]

I wasnt talking about a purpose of life, i was talking about morality.

ah ok

[iDevonian]

Thats jumping to conclusions. You dont know if Stalin ever felt remorse for what he had done or if he repented. Again, the majority of human beings on this planet know that murder is wrong. Why is it that they know this? My question is how do we as humans judge whether something is right or wrong? If we do just what society tells us then thats illogical because we have seen the evils that our society puts out every day.

I dont understand what you believe is illogical. We have emotions like empathy, that lead us to have emotional connections with others. You keep speaking as if we and society are not the same thing. Youre saying we just do what society tells us. Well, society for the most part tells us to do what we already do. For example, as ive used a couple times now. Do not speed in a vehicle. Well, we already do this because we dont want to kill ourselves or others. And there is nothing evil about this.

If we look at slavery in the US.If hundreds of years ago it was not an evil act, then what is it that allowed Americans to change their mentatlity towards blacks?

No offense but I answered this.

"Ill also add. I believe that how we live, is a learning process. We have to learn from our past, to promote a better future. So while people prior to the abolition of slavery may have thought of it as good. We have learned over time that black people arent inferior animals, nor are they less human or half human or anything like that. So, now that we know what slavery of those times truly is, and we now in todays time live in multiracial societies where we have good friends and family that are african. We now have little to no reason to think of slavery as a good thing."

But we see that societies have evolved to become better than previous ones. And it is because of ths intrinsic trait to differentiate between right and wrong that allowsd society to morally evolve. This is very similar to the theory of evolution by natural selection. Within this theory we find that no evolution can take place unless that trait is found within the organism. For example, rats connot evolve into flying species because there are no trait of growing wings found within their DNA that can be selected for when certain circumstances arise. Likewise human society cannot evolve into a better one if the trait of morality is not found within it.

That trait is called empathy. We are also genetically hardwired to work together in some means. Just as fish work together to survive, we do too, so long as it benefits us. And rats could evolve into flying species given enough time. As a matter of fact, they already have. Well not rats of today, but very small rat like mammals of long ago have evolved to become bats. And bats fly. But thats aside from the point.

I dont believe it is a soul that makes us care for each other.

Why would you care about your progeny? Youre dead. You dont exist anymore. Why would you care about them? Also, why would you care about others in this world even when you are still alive? Youre going to fall into non-existance anyways. Its only a matter of time. Why care?

The better question is, what would happen if you didnt care for your progeny? The answer is, you wouldnt exist (because you wouldnt have babies).

We are the ancestors of organisms that multiply, and work in ways which promote their genetic lineage. Those who do not multiply die and disappear from history. So you see, this is the only way we could exist, and so it is the way we do. So, why would I care for my progeny? Because I am human. I have natural instincts that make my children very important to me. Just as a bacteria lives in a way in which it promotes life for its bacteria children, we live in a way which promotes life for our children too. It is the only way we can exist given the laws that we live with. And this is the way it has been for over a couple billion years of our ancestors, going all the way back to prokaryotes or potentially RNA and beyond.

Edited May 9, 2012 by iDevonian

[malikshtar87]

iDevonian

That trait is called empathy. We are also genetically hardwired to work together in some means.

Atleast we both agree that we are hardwired to some degree but I think the difference is that in regards to empathy (which is a type of good) I believe that we are hardwired through our soul whereas you believe that we are hardwired through our physical body ( Atleast this is what it seems that you believe, correct me if I'm wrong).

The reason I dont believe its genetic programming is this.

First of all let's take that example of slavery that we have been discussing. If human beings are genetically hardwired to feel empathy, then why is it that white people did not feel empathy towards blacks when they were beat and killed for no reason other than the fact that they were black?

When we examine the phenotype of an individual, it is the physcial representation of that individuals genotype. And because of this, we cannot choose what type of genes we have or which ones will be found in our phenotype. I cant choose the color of my hair, or my height or my weight. These are all hardwired genetically. But when I feel empathy towards someone else, I choose whether or not I want to help. I choose whether or not I want to do bad. If it was genetically hardwired then I would have no choice but to do what is good.

I belive that we are hardwired to know what is right and what is wrong by the power of our soul. In the case of slavery, it is the environment that teaches a white child that blacks are inferior to whites, which goes against what their programming tells them. Abolitionists were those that did not believe in the inferiority of blacks because they were not molded to believve that when they were young. They still believed in what they were programmed to believe which is that blacks are equal to whites.

Earlier you said that at that time slavery was not evil, but even according to what you said this is not true, because people of that time had empathy towrds the blacks. So how could they have empathy but still treat them the way they did while still calling that not evil?

[iDevonian]

iDevonian

Atleast we both agree that we are hardwired to some degree but I think the difference is that in regards to empathy (which is a type of good) I believe that we are hardwired through our soul whereas you believe that we are hardwired through our physical body ( Atleast this is what it seems that you believe, correct me if I'm wrong).

The reason I dont believe its genetic programming is this.

First of all let's take that example of slavery that we have been discussing. If human beings are genetically hardwired to feel empathy, then why is it that white people did not feel empathy towards blacks when they were beat and killed for no reason other than the fact that they were black?

Blacks were seen as subhuman. By some believed to be on this earth to serve whites. They were often believed to be mentally deficient. They couldnt speak english to express themselves etc. So logically, some had ideas of justifying their poor treatment. Also, part of nature is also domination over others.. And this is natural as well. Its called, survival of the fittest. And another point, many slave owners did not abuse their slaves as others did (and of course many freed them). Many freed their slaves etc. And all of this, occurred realistically over a very brief time in American history. In the grand scheme of things, slavery didnt last any more than a blink of an eye. Also, in America, the south depended on slavery for economic purposes. The south made a great deal of money off of products harnessed using slaves.

So, empathy exists, but its not empathy alone. Life is not so simple as you seem to be trying to make it. Empathy isnt the only emotion mankind has nor are we incapable of having other emotions override that empathy. In the heat of combat, in war, we have other emotions that come in and allow us to not care about our enemy. So, just because we sometimes do not pay attention to our feelings for lesser beings, doesnt mean that empathy doesnt exist, nor does it mean that we automatically must have a soul to explain this.

When we examine the phenotype of an individual, it is the physcial representation of that individuals genotype. And because of this, we cannot choose what type of genes we have or which ones will be found in our phenotype. I cant choose the color of my hair, or my height or my weight. These are all hardwired genetically. But when I feel empathy towards someone else, I choose whether or not I want to help. I choose whether or not I want to do bad. If it was genetically hardwired then I would have no choice but to do what is good.

Choice is different from emotion. You can do whatever you want, it has no bearing on how you feel about something. And you have no choice but to fight for your own survival, good or bad. And you also have no choice but to feel empathy now that you have knowledge of what bad things occur in this world. If you saw a starving kid on tv, or a lion eating that kid while he screams for mercy, you would feel empathy whether you had the choice to help the kid or not. And so you see, your point doesnt make sense.

I belive that we are hardwired to know what is right and what is wrong by the power of our soul. In the case of slavery, it is the environment that teaches a white child that blacks are inferior to whites, which goes against what their programming tells them. Abolitionists were those that did not believe in the inferiority of blacks because they were not molded to believve that when they were young. They still believed in what they were programmed to believe which is that blacks are equal to whites.

Earlier you said that at that time slavery was not evil, but even according to what you said this is not true, because people of that time had empathy towrds the blacks. So how could they have empathy but still treat them the way they did while still calling that not evil?

You should take time to think about what you are saying. Answer your own question. As a matter of fact, id like to see you try to answer your own question before asking me them. How can we have empathy and still slaughter and eat billions of animals every day? At the very least you should say what you think my answer would be, and why.

What do you think?

And also, at the end of the day, emotions for other beings is something we can scientifically recognize. It physically exists within us and we know this. However, there is no scientific evidence for a soul. And so, no matter how you choose to work through this discussion, your side of the table is handicapped to a point that I wont be convinced by it.

Edited May 9, 2012 by iDevonian

[Pascal]

I have a questions to all athiests out there. How do you decide what is the right decision and what is the wrong one when facing a choice?

Do you have a certain moral code or principals that you follow that distinguish right from wrong?

Or do you have no moral code/principals at all?

Do you just go by what society deems is right?

Feel free to share your thoughts.

This has been done to death.

First of all, before you even read anymore you need to accept one thing. That non-believers can do good things, even if they do them without the intention of pleasing God, they do them simply because they are good. If you disagree, this discussion will get absolutely nowhere and everyone involved might as well quit now. I've seen that very same opinion pop up many times around here.

It's quite clear, just from getting out into the real world and observing things, a person can both do good and be an atheist.

If you're willing to accept that though, you can move on.

It's very simply. Allow me to illustrate, is the only reason you dont murder, rape or steal fear of punishment from God? Is this literally the only thing stopping you? If it is, you probably need help. If it isn't, its clear we can share those same reasons too.

You say making a choice like its something everyone sits down and plans for countless hours, most of the time these things are made on gut feelings 'on the spot'. You were already predisposed to choosing that action before the situation came up. It's not like all of a sudden you saw $50 dollars on the floor and needed to take a good 3 or 4 hours to figure out how you feel about it. If you dont think its a bad thing to do, you might as well take it. If you do think its a bad thing to do, you wont take it. It's pretty instant and 'gut'.

Everyone has a moral code and principals, i find it frankly absurd you think some people don't. How would you operate in a day to day basis or indeed in society at all? Some of the most godless societies (eg scanadanavia) have the best welfare and lowest crime rates. If all atheists were as bad and as immoral as some people make out, if being an atheist was the sole decider of your morals, places like sweden would be cesspools of murder, rape and inequality. Compared to the highly religious USA they are not at all anything like this.

How one chooses/develops/sticks to morals is exceedinly complex and i dont think we'll come to a resolution on that.

I've realised the futility and inherent time-wasting in responding to half these kind of questions, the other person wont change their mind, most of the time they dont even want their mind changed. It's just one big shouting match that ends in a stalemated conclusion.

If you accepted the two things i said to begin with, its clear to anyone who engage with the outside world there are many good atheists. If you need an explanation, its up to you to develop a framework to explain why they are good but its quite clear that they are actually good just from simple observation and logic.

These threads are worth a good read through and i very much suggest it:

http://www.shiachat....ost__p__2355820

Edited May 11, 2012 by kingpomba

[Incognito]

That non-believers can do good things, even if they do them without the intention of pleasing God, they do them simply because they are good

Very few people, even believers, do things for the sake of itself. So explain to me the value in doing it for the sake of it being 'good'? Why should anyone care in doing good or bad?

But in order for us to even get that far, it requires an understanding of how can there be any such thing as good in an atheist standard. When I say good, I do not mean good to the self or good as a utilitarian view, but rather intrinsically good.

It's very simply. Allow me to illustrate, is the only reason you dont murder, rape or steal fear of punishment from God? Is this literally the only thing stopping you? If it is, you probably need help. If it isn't, its clear we can share those same reasons too.

No one doubts the impact of society and upbringing on the things we can and cant do. If iDev here was brought up next to Genghis Khan, he too would be raping and murdering - but he would not be doing any wrong. Not at all. Most (?) people nowadays cannot rape and kill because it is so embedded in us that it is wrong to do so (although still shockingly surprising how often it happens anyway).

But again, this isnt morality. This is the genealogy of morality. Morality itself can only be understood in terms of God, the ultimate good. He is the universal good in which we can derive good and bad things from. For the atheist, no such thing exists, yet they make a heavy claim. That this mystical thing exists in the universe which is called 'good' and 'bad' and we must try our best to follow it. The universe is not built with a moral code, neither are humans. We see the different customs and rituals from different times and places we have had, this is proof we do not have a universal code of morals. If you are to go as far as to agreeing that child burials cannot be seen bad if a whole society practices it as a normal act, then you cannot say anything is bad.

[malikshtar87]

This has been done to death.

First of all, before you even read anymore you need to accept one thing. That non-believers can do good things, even if they do them without the intention of pleasing God, they do them simply because they are good. If you disagree, this discussion will get absolutely nowhere and everyone involved might as well quit now. I've seen that very same opinion pop up many times around here.

It's quite clear, just from getting out into the real world and observing things, a person can both do good and be an atheist.

If you're willing to accept that though, you can move on.

It's very simply. Allow me to illustrate, is the only reason you dont murder, rape or steal fear of punishment from God? Is this literally the only thing stopping you? If it is, you probably need help. If it isn't, its clear we can share those same reasons too.

You say making a choice like its something everyone sits down and plans for countless hours, most of the time these things are made on gut feelings 'on the spot'. You were already predisposed to choosing that action before the situation came up. It's not like all of a sudden you saw $50 dollars on the floor and needed to take a good 3 or 4 hours to figure out how you feel about it. If you dont think its a bad thing to do, you might as well take it. If you do think its a bad thing to do, you wont take it. It's pretty instant and 'gut'.

Everyone has a moral code and principals, i find it frankly absurd you think some people don't. How would you operate in a day to day basis or indeed in society at all? Some of the most godless societies (eg scanadanavia) have the best welfare and lowest crime rates. If all atheists were as bad and as immoral as some people make out, if being an atheist was the sole decider of your morals, places like sweden would be cesspools of murder, rape and inequality. Compared to the highly religious USA they are not at all anything like this.

How one chooses/develops/sticks to morals is exceedinly complex and i dont think we'll come to a resolution on that.

I've realised the futility and inherent time-wasting in responding to half these kind of questions, the other person wont change their mind, most of the time they dont even want their mind changed. It's just one big shouting match that ends in a stalemated conclusion.

If you accepted the two things i said to begin with, its clear to anyone who engage with the outside world there are many good atheists. If you need an explanation, its up to you to develop a framework to explain why they are good but its quite clear that they are actually good just from simple observation and logic.

These threads are worth a good read through and i very much suggest it:

http://www.shiachat....ost__p__2355820

Before you begin reading this kingpomba, please read it carefully because you obviously did not read my OP carefully. Nowhere did I say that athiests are not capable of doing good and whether athiests are good people or not isn't even the topic of my discussion. Please reread my OP. What I am questioning is where do you get your morals from. My intent in asking those questions was to lead the discussion into the issue of where morals originate from, or what is it that allows us to do good or bad. So please don't jump on it and try to sabotage the argument into a direction that it was never intended to take.

Personally, I don't do good just because I am afraid of God. I do good because of the love that I have for God. There's a HUGE difference between the two. I worship God not because I have been ordered to but because of the love I have for the One who deserves that worship. You make God seem like he's such a wrathful being even towards his believers when it is in fact the exact opposite. I don't want to open up another discussion on this thread, but I also wanted to clear up that issue.

So far as it seems, atleast from what I understood from iDevonian, he believes that morality is a genetically hardwired trait, as he put it, which is then inherited from one generation to the next. My view is a bit different. I agree that humans are hardwired to know right from wrong but that programming is found within the soul.

iDevonian

And also, at the end of the day, emotions for other beings is something we can scientifically recognize. It physically exists within us and we know this. However, there is no scientific evidence for a soul. And so, no matter how you choose to work through this discussion, your side of the table is handicapped to a point that I wont be convinced by it.

Ofcourse there is no scientific evidence for a soul! Science by definition only studies that what is found in the natural or material world. The natural sciences, which discuss the laws of nature and the properties of matter, are by definition limited to the researches concerning matter only, which is its subject. Soul by definition, is something not of this material world and something unnatural. So to say that you don't believe in a soul just because science hasn't proven that it exists is pretty absurd and illogical. Sure science has recognized emotions and how they occur within the human body, but this does not go against the teachings of islam. Islam says that the soul and the body are connected so it would only be logical to say that a certain mental emotion would have a physical representation, which science sees it as brain waves or brain activity. What science can never examine is that emotion itself. What it feels like to love from subjective point of view. What it feels like to hurt, to think, to feel afraid, etc. Science will never understand that because science has limited itself to only study the natural world.

Allamah Tabatabai says regarding the soul:

No doubt, I conceive in myself a concept which I refer to as " I "; and it is equally certain that every man has similar conception about himself. It is a conception which we are never oblivious of - as long As we are alive and conscious. It is not a limb of ours; nor is it a part of our body which we perceive by one of our senses or even through reason. In short, it is not like our external limbs which we feel with our senses of sight or touch, etc., nor is it like our internal organs which we know by senses or experiment. Sometimes we become oblivious of one or another of those limbs or organs - or even of the whole body. But we are never oblivious of the " I ." It proves that the " I " is other than the body and its parts.

One thing more. Body and its limbs and parts as well as the faculties and characteristics found in it, are all material. One of the characteristics of matter is gradual change, dissolution and divisibility. If soul were body or a part thereof, it would have been material and subject to change and division - but it is not so. If a man looks at this vision of his "self " and then compares it with that which he used to look at since the beginning of his gnosis of the "self", he will find that it is the same vision, the same notion, without the least change or plurality. It is unlike his body or its parts and characteristics which all undergo continuous change, in substance and form as well as in their conditions and positions. Also, he will realize that it is a notion, simple, indivisible and non- compound, unlike the body or its parts and characteristics. And matter and every material thing is a compound and divisible. Obviously, the soul is not body, nor is it a part of the body; it is neither a development of the body nor one of its characteristics. Coming to matter again, it makes no difference whether we perceived it with a sense of ours or by reasoning, or did not perceive it at all - it is matter and material in any case. And matter is subject to change and divisibility. But we have seen that the vision which we call "soul" is not subject to any of the above characteristics of matter. Therefore, soul is neither matter nor material.

Also, this vision of " I " is a notion, simple and one; there is no plurality of parts therein, nor is there any extraneous item mixed with it; it is an absolute one. Every man finds it in him-self that he is he and not someone else. Therefore, this vision is a concept subsistent by itself, and distinct; it is beyond the definition of matter and is not subject to its characteristics and properties. It separate from matter; it has a connection with the body which makes it identifiable with the body - and it is the connection of management.

incognito

If iDev here was brought up next to Genghis Khan, he too would be raping and murdering - but he would not be doing any wrong.

Just because someone doesn't know they would be doing wrong doesn't mean that what they are doing is right. Morality is objective . Islam came as a religion to finally implement order and justice in this world, or that which is good. Islam was not sent for just the arabs, but on the contrary, it was sent for all of humanity. The aim of Islam is to help individuals express by their intent and actions into that which Allah has bestowed upon them within their fitra, or innate being, which is necessaril good. So if Islam is for all humanity then its aim is to aid in expressing that fitra for each human being on this Earth. So morality must be univeral to each and every human being.

[Incognito]

Just because someone doesn't know they would be doing wrong doesn't mean that what they are doing is right. Morality is objective . Islam came as a religion to finally implement order and justice in this world, or that which is good. Islam was not sent for just the arabs, but on the contrary, it was sent for all of humanity. The aim of Islam is to help individuals express by their intent and actions into that which Allah has bestowed upon them within their fitra, or innate being, which is necessaril good. So if Islam is for all humanity then its aim is to aid in expressing that fitra for each human being on this Earth. So morality must be univeral to each and every human being.

Such a claim can only be made true if one is to accept God. If there is no God, then that is a very heavy claim and must be shown why it is true.

[iDevonian]

Ofcourse there is no scientific evidence for a soul! Science by definition only studies that what is found in the natural or material world. The natural sciences, which discuss the laws of nature and the properties of matter, are by definition limited to the researches concerning matter only, which is its subject. Soul by definition, is something not of this material world and something unnatural. So to say that you don't believe in a soul just because science hasn't proven that it exists is pretty absurd and illogical. Sure science has recognized emotions and how they occur within the human body, but this does not go against the teachings of islam. Islam says that the soul and the body are connected so it would only be logical to say that a certain mental emotion would have a physical representation, which science sees it as brain waves or brain activity. What science can never examine is that emotion itself. What it feels like to love from subjective point of view. What it feels like to hurt, to think, to feel afraid, etc. Science will never understand that because science has limited itself to only study the natural world.

Allamah Tabatabai says regarding the soul:

No doubt, I conceive in myself a concept which I refer to as " I "; and it is equally certain that every man has similar conception about himself. It is a conception which we are never oblivious of - as long As we are alive and conscious. It is not a limb of ours; nor is it a part of our body which we perceive by one of our senses or even through reason. In short, it is not like our external limbs which we feel with our senses of sight or touch, etc., nor is it like our internal organs which we know by senses or experiment. Sometimes we become oblivious of one or another of those limbs or organs - or even of the whole body. But we are never oblivious of the " I ." It proves that the " I " is other than the body and its parts.

One thing more. Body and its limbs and parts as well as the faculties and characteristics found in it, are all material. One of the characteristics of matter is gradual change, dissolution and divisibility. If soul were body or a part thereof, it would have been material and subject to change and division - but it is not so. If a man looks at this vision of his "self " and then compares it with that which he used to look at since the beginning of his gnosis of the "self", he will find that it is the same vision, the same notion, without the least change or plurality. It is unlike his body or its parts and characteristics which all undergo continuous change, in substance and form as well as in their conditions and positions. Also, he will realize that it is a notion, simple, indivisible and non- compound, unlike the body or its parts and characteristics. And matter and every material thing is a compound and divisible. Obviously, the soul is not body, nor is it a part of the body; it is neither a development of the body nor one of its characteristics. Coming to matter again, it makes no difference whether we perceived it with a sense of ours or by reasoning, or did not perceive it at all - it is matter and material in any case. And matter is subject to change and divisibility. But we have seen that the vision which we call "soul" is not subject to any of the above characteristics of matter. Therefore, soul is neither matter nor material.

Also, this vision of " I " is a notion, simple and one; there is no plurality of parts therein, nor is there any extraneous item mixed with it; it is an absolute one. Every man finds it in him-self that he is he and not someone else. Therefore, this vision is a concept subsistent by itself, and distinct; it is beyond the definition of matter and is not subject to its characteristics and properties. It separate from matter; it has a connection with the body which makes it identifiable with the body - and it is the connection of management.

Sounds like you are just making stuff up. I wont bother to "debate". You are free to believe what you want.

Such a claim can only be made true if one is to accept God. If there is no God, then that is a very heavy claim and must be shown why it is true.

exactly. And that is the difference between our thoughts and his. We can support our claims, but what can he do aside from simply speak?

This discussion is probably a waste of time now that we have reached the conclusion. I will be on my way now.

Edited May 12, 2012 by iDevonian

[malikshtar87]

Sounds like you are just making stuff up. I wont bother to "debate". You are free to believe what you want.

exactly. And that is the difference between our thoughts and his. We can support our claims, but what can he do aside from simply speak?

This discussion is probably a waste of time now that we have reached the conclusion. I will be on my way now.

What exactly is it that you think that I'm making up? I don't think we have reached an end to this debate.

Such a claim can only be made true if one is to accept God. If there is no God, then that is a very heavy claim and must be shown why it is true.

That post was only directed to you since you do believe in God. It was not directed to those that do not believe in God.

[MysticKnight]

iDevonian

It doesn't make sense to deny morality out of the premise "If God doesn't exist, then morality doesn't exist". God being necessary for morality (if true) is a knowledge of morality. Why would you deny morality out of knowledge of morality?

How do you think you know this attribute of morality, that it must be from metaphysical/god? Isn't this knowledge of the metaphysical world which you are denying? How do you have that knowledge if there is no established relationship in reality between morality and metaphysical reality?

It makes more sense to acknowledge God or if you can't, s[Edited Out] the intuition that morality needs metaphysical reality/God, but rather somehow evolution has created something beyond our understanding. The reason I say either of these options is because morality is part of your very conscious. It's part of whom you are. It's there. It's manifest within you. It's like your denying whom you are by this.

It's rather sad. If you going to deny something, just deny you need God for morality. Don't go denying objective morality. That's just messed up.

[Pascal]

What I am questioning is where do you get your morals from.

Again, i'll repeat my example. Is your religion the only thing stopping you from raping or murdering someone? If it is, seek help, lots. If it isn't, you can begin to see where i might derive some of my morals from.

Personally, i've looked at a fair amount of philosophy, so, that has obviously influenced me. I can't say where the average atheist gets their morals from.

The first abrahamic religion, Judaism. It's quite clear that people thought murder was bad, that rape was bad, that eating shellfish was bad before it was codified in Judaism, these kind of things already existed. You can argue a bit maybe over the shellfish one but i think that has a good basis in fact. Shellfish are often crawling with parasites, it makes sense of hygenic reasons to avoid them.

I never really thought much of where i get my morals from. I think partially from the society we're all in and what the norm is but also in addition to what we personally feel is right.

I'm not one of those millitant atheists that believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater (for those unfamilar with english idioms it basically means throwing out the good with the bad, throwing out something entirely, even though it has good parts). Religion has some good morals and some good ideas. The way it creates evokations of these statements are very powerful as well. I've always thought about the meaning of life for example and i found one of the best and most concise reasonings believe it or not in the bible, it went along the lines of "Eat, drink and be merry". Very Epicurean though.

Prior to university, all the schools i went to were 'catholic schools'. I actually value my time there and the things i learned. Likewise, a lot of religious people are decent compassionate people.

So, my problem isn't with religious morality per se.

Certainly, you could argue the morality of a lot of western society is the morality of Christianity (personally if Jesus was around today though people would consider him a socialist hippie radical, especially in the USA, ironically enough by his most strident supporters). Those moral, the big ones, the big foundation of laws, predate Christianity though.

So far as it seems, atleast from what I understood from iDevonian, he believes that morality is a genetically hardwired trait, as he put it, which is then inherited from one generation to the next. My view is a bit different. I agree that humans are hardwired to know right from wrong but that programming is found within the soul.

Well, the only unifying characteristic of atheists is lack of a belief in God. So, on some issue like this you'll probably find many different opinions.

I haven't read his posts, so, i'm not sure if you're accurately capturing what he is saying or not. I don't think it is genetic, in the actual scientific sense of that world. Genes direct the production of proteins in your body, its a very big strech to suddenly jump from that to morality, especially in the healthy person. There are some genetic components to psychological things like mental disorders but being the kind of scientist i am i prefer to see those as biological rather than psychological problems. The point is that its very hard to prove or even claim morality is genetic.

I'm not sure if its in the thread i linked, if it isn't, ill eventually dig up where i discussed the origin of our laws.

If you're saying any morality is hard-wired, thats of course true. Every human will have some kind of moral code, by the nature of what we are. I dont think this is whats being claimed though, whats being claimed is we are hard-wired with a 'good' moral code. We are hard-wired to believe murder is bad, to believe stealing is bad. This, i might disagree with.

I think morality *will* always emerge when you throw a bunch of people together. I believe its an emergent property and an evolutionary useful property as well. This is discussed in great depth where i talked about laws but a society basically needs some kind of morality to function properly otherwise it'll probably run itself into the ground. So, i think morality is always bound to emerge just to allow humans to work together. Sort of like in a conversation, we take turns speaking, we put others before ourselves. If both people spoke at the same time, nothing would get done.

Ofcourse there is no scientific evidence for a soul! Science by definition only studies that what is found in the natural or material world. The natural sciences, which discuss the laws of nature and the properties of matter, are by definition limited to the researches concerning matter only, which is its subject. Soul by definition, is something not of this material world and something unnatural.

I accept you believe this and i know you do but i DON'T believe this. I dont think its possible for something to be supernatural or not be made out of matter.

I'm an empiricist in regards to these things (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism , bit of this thrown in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism ).

Sure science has recognized emotions and how they occur within the human body, but this does not go against the teachings of islam. Islam says that the soul and the body are connected so it would only be logical to say that a certain mental emotion would have a physical representation...

Again, i dont believe in a soul so the debate kind of ends here.

I'll say time and time again - At least in the philosophy i practice, your conclusion, what you believe, is born out of the premises that preceed it. I simply don't accept the existence of the soul, so, i dont accept anything you say is derived from the soul, in the manner you say it is derived. We have fundamentally different views here and this is where it'll always reach a stalemate, which is why these debates go nowhere half the time.

[iDevonian]

I haven't read his posts, so, i'm not sure if you're accurately capturing what he is saying or not. I don't think it is genetic, in the actual scientific sense of that world. Genes direct the production of proteins in your body, its a very big strech to suddenly jump from that to morality, especially in the healthy person. There are some genetic components to psychological things like mental disorders but being the kind of scientist i am i prefer to see those as biological rather than psychological problems. The point is that its very hard to prove or even claim morality is genetic.

I'm not sure if its in the thread i linked, if it isn't, ill eventually dig up where i discussed the origin of our laws.

If you're saying any morality is hard-wired, thats of course true. Every human will have some kind of moral code, by the nature of what we are. I dont think this is whats being claimed though, whats being claimed is we are hard-wired with a 'good' moral code. We are hard-wired to believe murder is bad, to believe stealing is bad. This, i might disagree with.

I think morality *will* always emerge when you throw a bunch of people together. I believe its an emergent property and an evolutionary useful property as well. This is discussed in great depth where i talked about laws but a society basically needs some kind of morality to function properly otherwise it'll probably run itself into the ground. So, i think morality is always bound to emerge just to allow humans to work together. Sort of like in a conversation, we take turns speaking, we put others before ourselves. If both people spoke at the same time, nothing would get done.

Yes, and if nothing were ever done, we wouldnt be where we are now. But yes, Id agree with the things you have said here. I wouldnt say there is any "good" or "bad" moral code. Just one built for survival. Which would include things like sympathy for those who are being murdered.

What exactly is it that you think that I'm making up? I don't think we have reached an end to this debate.

Your belief in the soul. And this isnt a debate. Its just people talking.

[malikshtar87]

Ya, I think you're right this discussion is over, especially when you want to limit your methods of obtaining knowledge to only science which is in itself limited.

[iDevonian]

iDevonian

It doesn't make sense to deny morality out of the premise "If God doesn't exist, then morality doesn't exist". God being necessary for morality (if true) is a knowledge of morality. Why would you deny morality out of knowledge of morality?

How do you think you know this attribute of morality, that it must be from metaphysical/god? Isn't this knowledge of the metaphysical world which you are denying? How do you have that knowledge if there is no established relationship in reality between morality and metaphysical reality?

It makes more sense to acknowledge God or if you can't, s[Edited Out] the intuition that morality needs metaphysical reality/God, but rather somehow evolution has created something beyond our understanding. The reason I say either of these options is because morality is part of your very conscious. It's part of whom you are. It's there. It's manifest within you. It's like your denying whom you are by this.

It's rather sad. If you going to deny something, just deny you need God for morality. Don't go denying objective morality. That's just messed up.

I have no idea what youre talking about. Im sorry. I never denied morality on the premise you mentioned. Then you just went on a tangent.

[MysticKnight]

You stated:

Assuming we're talking about naturalists, its hard to believe in evil if there is no supernatural realm or anything like that. The same goes with "good" or "morals".

But never mind that, then what is the reason you don't believe in objective morality?

[iDevonian]

You stated:

But never mind that, then what is the reason you don't believe in objective morality?

An honest question. Did I say that I didnt believe in objective morality?

Ultimately, I dont believe in morals at all. Well, i guess it depends on how you define it.

Edited May 14, 2012 by iDevonian

[MysticKnight]

An honest question. Did I say that I didnt believe in objective morality?

Ultimately, I dont believe in morals at all. Well, i guess it depends on how you define it.

You're confusing me bro.

[Pascal]

An honest question. Did I say that I didnt believe in objective morality?

Ultimately, I dont believe in morals at all. Well, i guess it depends on how you define it.

I'm just going to jump on this as well.

This is my personal belief, I don't know what iDevonian thinks and im not referring to him here.

If you think morals exist and are objective in the sense that they are "hard-coded" or an intrinsic part of the universe, i don't believe that.

You can draw a similar parallel to people who think the universe does contain some intrinsic meaning, some built in meaning, that its just not a meaning we create.

I dont think morals exist in that sense because it simply doesnt make any err...sense.

If you believe in a God and a whole system around that, that's obviously something you'd believe but you'd be hard pressed for a non-believer to buy this idea.

Some moral systems have definitely more utility, love, kindness, sharing, ect than others but in the end they're all systems we created.

Of course by extension, the morals you say that are given to you by God, to me, are just another set of human morals. I think they were written by humans, they may be good morals (the golden rule for example) but ultimately its still a human philosophy, written by human hands. So, i dont give any particular creedence to the bible than say i do over any other philosopher like Locke, Nietzsche or indeed my own human sense.