Is morality an illusion?

[olavisjo]

To me, morality is an obligation to do the right thing and abstain from the wrong. But this definition can't apply to an atheist because there is nothing to give rise to the obligation to behave in any particular way.
To get around this the atheist will redefine morality as favorable and unfavorable behaviour, and just by coincidence, cooperation and other moral behaviour just happen to be favorable to us.
So it is generally in ones best long term interest to be moral but the idea that we are somehow obligated to be moral is an illusion.
So, should an atheist believe that morality exists or just bite the bullet and say that morality is just an illusion?

[Artheos]

Morality is real, it is culturally defined and it is derived from self-awareness and thinking about thinking.

How do you feel about laws in Afghanistan forbidding the education of women?

In their culture, that is moral.. here, it is not.

That shows that morality is subjective, not objective

Well, how do you feel about slavery in the US in the 1700s?

[Goat]

Morality is real, it is culturally defined and it is derived from self-awareness and thinking about thinking.

How do you feel about laws in Afghanistan forbidding the education of women?

In their culture, that is moral.. here, it is not.

That shows that morality is subjective, not objective

Well, how do you feel about slavery in the US in the 1700s?

The same way I feel about the laws in Afganistan for women now. In those times, they thought it was right and proper.. today, we do not.

That shows that morality is subjective, not objective.

[Artheos]

Morality is real, it is culturally defined and it is derived from self-awareness and thinking about thinking.

How do you feel about laws in Afghanistan forbidding the education of women?

In their culture, that is moral.. here, it is not.

That shows that morality is subjective, not objective

Well, how do you feel about slavery in the US in the 1700s?

The same way I feel about the laws in Afganistan for women now. In those times, they thought it was right and proper.. today, we do not.

That shows that morality is subjective, not objective.

My question is do you consider slavery and suppression of women moral, not for a comparison of society at large morals.

[Goat]

Morality is real, it is culturally defined and it is derived from self-awareness and thinking about thinking.

How do you feel about laws in Afghanistan forbidding the education of women?

In their culture, that is moral.. here, it is not.

That shows that morality is subjective, not objective

Well, how do you feel about slavery in the US in the 1700s?

The same way I feel about the laws in Afganistan for women now. In those times, they thought it was right and proper.. today, we do not.

That shows that morality is subjective, not objective.

My question is do you consider slavery and suppression of women moral, not for a comparison of society at large morals.

When it comes to the question of is morality an illusion, or if it is subjective or objective, my opinion or feelings on it one way or another is totally irrelevent, since I am a product of my time period and society

[Artheos]

Morality is real, it is culturally defined and it is derived from self-awareness and thinking about thinking.

How do you feel about laws in Afghanistan forbidding the education of women?

In their culture, that is moral.. here, it is not.

That shows that morality is subjective, not objective

Well, how do you feel about slavery in the US in the 1700s?

The same way I feel about the laws in Afganistan for women now. In those times, they thought it was right and proper.. today, we do not.

That shows that morality is subjective, not objective.

My question is do you consider slavery and suppression of women moral, not for a comparison of society at large morals.

When it comes to the question of is morality an illusion, or if it is subjective or objective, my opinion or feelings on it one way or another is totally irrelevent, since I am a product of my time period and society

As I understand it, the eventual overthrow of slavery on both sides of the Atlantic was initially a hugely unpopular change, and those that did so were decried in various ways for their efforts.

Were they immoral for changing the apparently moral behavior of their society?

Or was the society immoral for changing their previously moral behavior?

Is it moral for nations to behead homosexuals if it is within their law?

Does this mean that gay marriage should be banned, since it is currently the law in the majority of the states, indicating that society at large considers it immoral?

Or perhaps, morality is irrelevant except in the present and within our own culture, and it's just stuff that happened?

[TXatheist]

To me, morality is an obligation to do the right thing and abstain from the wrong. But this definition can't apply to an atheist because there is nothing to give rise to the obligation to behave in any particular way.
To get around this the atheist will redefine morality as favorable and unfavorable behaviour, and just by coincidence, cooperation and other moral behaviour just happen to be favorable to us.
So it is generally in ones best long term interest to be moral but the idea that we are somehow obligated to be moral is an illusion.
So, should an atheist believe that morality exists or just bite the bullet and say that morality is just an illusion?

Neither god nor the bible defines morality. Before Christianity came along, people already knew it was wrong to kill each other, to steal from each other, to lie to each other, etc. These morals did not begin with the ten commandments. The bible and the ten commandments simply reaffirmed what man already knew. The Christian god did not define morality, he simply chiseled what we already knew onto stone tablets, if you believe in the story.

I do not believe in the Christian god, still I know it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal, murder, commit adultery, etc. Basic morality is taught to us by our parents and it is also learned from seeing the hurt that disregarding basic morality can cause. A small child does not know better than to steal a toy from another child until his parents teach him that to do so is wrong. And they do not need the bible to back them up. And if that child steals the toy while his parents are not around, and he/she sees the other child cry over the loss of the toy, it is simple human nature for him/her to feel sympathy for the other child. Many of us have seen such a situation and have been proud of the guilty child for returning the toy in order to make the other child happy again. Granted, it doesn't happen that way every time, but it does happen. Especially if his/her parents have been teaching him good social skills. But nowhere in this scenario does god or the bible have to intervene.

Morality boils down to making sure one's actions to do not affect any other person in a negative way. Lying, cheating, stealing, committing adultery, etc all cause harm to other people. We do not need the bible to tell us that we should not act in ways that will hurt others. Even Atheists know this.

[Goat]

As I understand it, the eventual overthrow of slavery on both sides of the Atlantic was initially a hugely unpopular change, and those that did so were decried in various ways for their efforts.

Were they immoral for changing the apparently moral behavior of their society?

Or was the society immoral for changing their previously moral behavior?

Is it moral for nations to behead homosexuals if it is within their law?

Does this mean that gay marriage should be banned, since it is currently the law in the majority of the states, indicating that society at large considers it immoral?

Or perhaps, morality is irrelevant except in the present and within our own culture, and it's just stuff that happened?

The needs and wants of society change. What fueled a lot of the southern slavery was the need for labor because of the introduction of the cotton gin... what fueled the elimination of slavery in the north was industrialization, which eliminated the need for a lot of the unskilled labor.

What drives changes in morality is disagreements in a society about what should be considered moral, and what shouldn't be.

So, are you finished building straw men?

[TXatheist]

As I understand it, the eventual overthrow of slavery on both sides of the Atlantic was initially a hugely unpopular change, and those that did so were decried in various ways for their efforts.

Slavery is a terrible thing. But some people saw blacks not as people, but as sub-humans. There were even many god-fearing Christians who owned slaves. That doesn't make them bad people necessarily, just ignorant. You would have to be in their shoes in those times to fully understand. We have come a long way and see things completely differently now.

Were they immoral for changing the apparently moral behavior of their society?

No, they were discovering a new aspect of morality. One that they had not been confronted with before. We always knew that owning whites as slaves was wrong. But blacks were not seen as equals to whites in those times. But we see evidence today that morality won and the slaves were freed and blacks have the same rights as whites do today. Yes, there is still racism and prejudice. We haven't quite made it to where we should be yet. But we have grown leaps and bounds since slavery. And the Christian god did not come down and free the slaves. It took man seeing the err of his ways and realizing his mistakes.

Or was the society immoral for changing their previously moral behavior?

We realized we had been immoral and we changed.

Is it moral for nations to behead homosexuals if it is within their law?

Killing for any reason other than self defense is immoral. For this particular argument, we will not get into the death penalty. Labeling something a law does not make it moral. Laws should be based on morals, not define them.

Does this mean that gay marriage should be banned, since it is currently the law in the majority of the states, indicating that society at large considers it immoral?

Again, laws do not dictate morality. Society uses its beliefs based on its view of morality to create laws. People are human, and sometimes we get it right and sometimes we get it wrong. In a democracy, we have to go with what the majority believes, right or wrong. Gay marriage is not immoral because the majority believes it to be. It is illegal because the majority believes it is immoral. Some say we should go by what the majority believes. Some say we should go by what the bible says. Others still say we should go with what is "moral". These don't always agree.

Or perhaps, morality is irrelevant except in the present and within our own culture, and it's just stuff that happened?

I believe that morality says "behave in such a way that does not harm anyone or anything else." But we must also accept that morality is a code of conduct put forth by a society, group, or religion. The latter, however, is a man-made, man-defined morality. While the former seems to me to be a natural, instinctive morality.

[Artheos]

As I understand it, the eventual overthrow of slavery on both sides of the Atlantic was initially a hugely unpopular change, and those that did so were decried in various ways for their efforts.

Were they immoral for changing the apparently moral behavior of their society?

Or was the society immoral for changing their previously moral behavior?

Is it moral for nations to behead homosexuals if it is within their law?

Does this mean that gay marriage should be banned, since it is currently the law in the majority of the states, indicating that society at large considers it immoral?

Or perhaps, morality is irrelevant except in the present and within our own culture, and it's just stuff that happened?

The needs and wants of society change. What fueled a lot of the southern slavery was the need for labor because of the introduction of the cotton gin... what fueled the elimination of slavery in the north was industrialization, which eliminated the need for a lot of the unskilled labor.

What drives changes in morality is disagreements in a society about what should be considered moral, and what shouldn't be.

So, are you finished building straw men?

I'm asking for your perspectives of moral behavior in specific situations. A straw man is a directed assessment about someone else's argument that is incorrect. Since I am exploring your perspective, and not misstating it, this is hardly a straw man.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

So, given your last statement regarding my actual questions, which you didn't answer, You are stating that morality is culturally and chronologically dependent and moral in and of itself?

Does this mean that you agree with the following statement: "Might makes Right"?

[Artheos]

As I understand it, the eventual overthrow of slavery on both sides of the Atlantic was initially a hugely unpopular change, and those that did so were decried in various ways for their efforts.

Slavery is a terrible thing. But some people saw blacks not as people, but as sub-humans. There were even many god-fearing Christians who owned slaves. That doesn't make them bad people necessarily, just ignorant. You would have to be in their shoes in those times to fully understand. We have come a long way and see things completely differently now.

Were they immoral for changing the apparently moral behavior of their society?

No, they were discovering a new aspect of morality. One that they had not been confronted with before. We always knew that owning whites as slaves was wrong. But blacks were not seen as equals to whites in those times. But we see evidence today that morality won and the slaves were freed and blacks have the same rights as whites do today. Yes, there is still racism and prejudice. We haven't quite made it to where we should be yet. But we have grown leaps and bounds since slavery. And the Christian god did not come down and free the slaves. It took man seeing the err of his ways and realizing his mistakes.

I'm guess it is important to you that no deity came down and effected change, I believe the earliest were Anthony Benezet, John Woolman, Thomas Clarkson and William Wilberforce. Definitely all men!

Or was the society immoral for changing their previously moral behavior?

We realized we had been immoral and we changed.

Is it moral for nations to behead homosexuals if it is within their law?

Killing for any reason other than self defense is immoral. For this particular argument, we will not get into the death penalty. Labeling something a law does not make it moral. Laws should be based on morals, not define them.

Does this mean that gay marriage should be banned, since it is currently the law in the majority of the states, indicating that society at large considers it immoral?

Again, laws do not dictate morality. Society uses its beliefs based on its view of morality to create laws. People are human, and sometimes we get it right and sometimes we get it wrong. In a democracy, we have to go with what the majority believes, right or wrong. Gay marriage is not immoral because the majority believes it to be. It is illegal because the majority believes it is immoral. Some say we should go by what the majority believes. Some say we should go by what the bible says. Others still say we should go with what is "moral". These don't always agree.

That laws don't dictate morality, but morality is turned into laws is an important distinction. You've also pretty much clarified that laws are not always moral.

Or perhaps, morality is irrelevant except in the present and within our own culture, and it's just stuff that happened?

I believe that morality says "behave in such a way that does not harm anyone or anything else." But we must also accept that morality is a code of conduct put forth by a society, group, or religion. The latter, however, is a man-made, man-defined morality. While the former seems to me to be a natural, instinctive morality.

That seems to indicate you feel there is both an objective morality, which is similar to the Wicca Rede, the second of the great commandments (matthew 22:39), golden rule and so forth, and a subjective morality based on culture.

Does that sound about right?

Note, I'm not stating that the Wicca Rede and so forth is independently correct, just noting a similarity to your definition of morality.