Is Humankind Making Moral Progress?

just_sayin

JulesKorngold said:

Not so much.

Evidence for progress:

• Practices once deemed acceptable, like slavery, child marriage, and public executions, are now widely condemned.
• Science and technology have improved living standards for many, alleviating poverty and disease.
  

Evidence against progress:

• Wars, genocide, and continued social inequalities suggest ongoing moral failings.
• New technologies like AI and genetic engineering raise ethical concerns and potential misuse.
  

For the atheist this is a logically nonsensical question.  You can't speak of progress - there may be change.  But progress suggests an ideal to move toward.  If you believe that you are just the product of random reactions, then there really isn't 'progress', there may be change, and it may be more advantageous to you - but it is just as likely that it is not advantageous to someone else.  So the question appeals to some moral law beyond the individual or group.  For that you need an objective lawgiver - aka - God.  If you think I'm wrong, then tell me how you determined a moral standard that should be imposed on others that is objective for all.  

MayCaesar

Not sure about humanity making moral progress, but ChatGPT certainly is making technical progress.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

JulesKorngold said:

Not so much.

Evidence for progress:

• Practices once deemed acceptable, like slavery, child marriage, and public executions, are now widely condemned.
• Science and technology have improved living standards for many, alleviating poverty and disease.
  

Evidence against progress:

• Wars, genocide, and continued social inequalities suggest ongoing moral failings.
• New technologies like AI and genetic engineering raise ethical concerns and potential misuse.
  

For the atheist this is a logically nonsensical question.  You can't speak of progress - there may be change.  But progress suggests an ideal to move toward.  If you believe that you are just the product of random reactions, then there really isn't 'progress', there may be change, and it may be more advantageous to you - but it is just as likely that it is not advantageous to someone else.  So the question appeals to some moral law beyond the individual or group.  For that you need an objective lawgiver - aka - God.  If you think I'm wrong, then tell me how you determined a moral standard that should be imposed on others that is objective for all.  

Please stop speaking for atheists. 

We can gauge morality by first understanding it's a concept that's bigger than our individual selves. It must benefit people as a whole while offering protections simultaneously. In doing this we achieve both objectivity and subsequently respect for one another. A human concept if mutually practiced by everyone can become greater than humanity itself. And in theory would need not be imposed as then you begin to transition into law.

Atheists and theists get their morals from this same source. The atheist generally understands this though they may add or subtract here or there. The theist understands morality is bigger than themselves but with one difference, they believe the objectivity comes from fictitious writings giving them the illusion of some nonhuman source lending objectivity. Of course this only means they're chasing the author or authors ideas of morality, still a human concept.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

For the atheist this is a logically nonsensical question.  You can't speak of progress - there may be change.  But progress suggests an ideal to move toward.  If you believe that you are just the product of random reactions, then there really isn't 'progress', there may be change, and it may be more advantageous to you - but it is just as likely that it is not advantageous to someone else.  So the question appeals to some moral law beyond the individual or group.  For that you need an objective lawgiver - aka - God.  If you think I'm wrong, then tell me how you determined a moral standard that should be imposed on others that is objective for all.  

<----- Here is the objective lawgiver I need. You are free to call me God if it makes you happy. But please do not worship me, it is a little creepy...

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: We Don't Need A God To Tell Us What Is Right Or Wrong

@just_sayin
We possess the ability to reason, contemplate consequences, and feel empathy, allowing us to form our moral principles based on understanding and compassion.

Bogan

"Morality" is simply the generally agreed upon cultural values of a community.    Such values can differ wildly from culture to culture and from time to time.       Some cultures have considered cannibalism okay, others, human sacrifice okay,      Today, the idea of 13 year old girls marrying 55 year old men is considered utterly reprehensible and illegal.   But only 150 years ago it was legal and quite common.     And in the impoverished Middle east and Africa today, that is still the case.    Whoever started this topic, and wrote it's lead in, seems to think that there is some sort of universal morality?    That simply is not the case.      The primary driver of morality can be the interests of whichever ruling class is in power, or it can simply be caused by practical necessity.    If the western world  once again gets so poor through this climate change hysteria, that young females are considered useless mouths to feed, we will once again see young virgins being sold off to the highest bidder.  

just_sayin

JulesKorngold said:

@just_sayin
We possess the ability to reason, contemplate consequences, and feel empathy, allowing us to form our moral principles based on understanding and compassion.

Jules if you are 'reasoning' with your brain, why should I believe for a moment, that a brain that was created by random chemical reactions, without a purpose or design to it, can be trusted at all?  Why would you think you can trust it?

What you call understanding and compassion is to another idiocy.  Doing what is best for the individual is what makes sense if you are an atheist.  Your interests supercede anyone else's, because your only imperative is to survive.  

As Thomas Merton put it

"In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave? Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?"

Bogan

Human babies are taught from the age of two (the terrible two's) that they are not the center of the universe.    They are a part of a self protecting group called a "family" and they need to suppress their desire to be entirely selfish to order to be considered a valued member of the family.   As they get older, they begin to realise that they must do the same thing for every other social group that they belong to, or their own social groups will despise them, perhaps even shun them.       The moral codes which guide their behaviour have nothing at all to do with non existent Gods, although communities may sanctify codes of conduct using religion, claiming that it is the order of a non existent God.   

Each one of us needs to balance sour elf interest against the good of the groups we belong to as a whole, usually on a day to day basis.       It is the tacit understanding of what a community generally believes is correct behaviour which defines morality.    

just_sayin

Bogan said:

"Morality" is simply the generally agreed upon cultural values of a community.    Such values can differ wildly from culture to culture and from time to time.       Some cultures have considered cannibalism okay, others, human sacrifice okay,      Today, the idea of 13 year old girls marrying 55 year old men is considered utterly reprehensible and illegal.   But only 150 years ago it was legal and quite common.     And in the impoverished Middle east and Africa today, that is still the case.    Whoever started this topic, and wrote it's lead in, seems to think that there is some sort of universal morality?    That simply is not the case.      The primary driver of morality can be the interests of whichever ruling class is in power, or it can simply be caused by practical necessity.    If the western world  once again gets so poor through this climate change hysteria, that young females are considered useless mouths to feed, we will once again see young virgins being sold off to the highest bidder.  

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!  You done good, Bogie!  You, in  a brief paragraph, highlighted that atheism's morals are not objective but whatever the group in power decides they are.  Some say you are an id-iot.  But not me.  I say you are very useful. 

Bogan

@just_sayin ;    Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!  You done good, Bogie!  You, in  a brief paragraph, highlighted that atheism's morals are not objective but whatever the group in power decides they are.  Some say you are an id-iot.  But not me.  I say you are very useful. 

I am a useful ?   Thank you JS.    That is the nicest thing you have ever said about me.  I am touched.     

Bogan

Damned automatic editor.    Make that. I am a useful id-iot?   Thank you JS.    That is the nicest thing you have ever said about me.  I am touched.     

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

JulesKorngold said:

Not so much.

Evidence for progress:

• Practices once deemed acceptable, like slavery, child marriage, and public executions, are now widely condemned.
• Science and technology have improved living standards for many, alleviating poverty and disease.
  

Evidence against progress:

• Wars, genocide, and continued social inequalities suggest ongoing moral failings.
• New technologies like AI and genetic engineering raise ethical concerns and potential misuse.
  

For the atheist this is a logically nonsensical question.  You can't speak of progress - there may be change.  But progress suggests an ideal to move toward.  If you believe that you are just the product of random reactions, then there really isn't 'progress', there may be change, and it may be more advantageous to you - but it is just as likely that it is not advantageous to someone else.  So the question appeals to some moral law beyond the individual or group.  For that you need an objective lawgiver - aka - God.  If you think I'm wrong, then tell me how you determined a moral standard that should be imposed on others that is objective for all.  

Please stop speaking for atheists. 

We can gauge morality by first understanding it's a concept that's bigger than our individual selves. It must benefit people as a whole while offering protections simultaneously. In doing this we achieve both objectivity and subsequently respect for one another. A human concept if mutually practiced by everyone can become greater than humanity itself. And in theory would need not be imposed as then you begin to transition into law.

Atheists and theists get their morals from this same source. The atheist generally understands this though they may add or subtract here or there. The theist understands morality is bigger than themselves but with one difference, they believe the objectivity comes from fictitious writings giving them the illusion of some nonhuman source lending objectivity. Of course this only means they're chasing the author or authors ideas of morality, still a human concept.

You believe that your morals are 'objective'.  That's very sus.  They are anything but that.  You said that if atheists work together they can become 'greater'- that terminology speaks of a higher goal.  That goal is either yours or a groups.  Neither of which is 'objective'  Other individuals or groups can disagree with your goal.  And why should they agree with you?  Why should anyone behave because you said so?  What is your authority?  You are but merely a product of random processes, possibly bad chemical connections, made just gas, certainly not anything created by a creator, as you say.  Your standards exist only in your imagination and have no real meaning to people who take reality seriously.  Your 'greater' goal is just your faith claim.  That's all it could ever be for an atheist. 

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

For the atheist this is a logically nonsensical question.  You can't speak of progress - there may be change.  But progress suggests an ideal to move toward.  If you believe that you are just the product of random reactions, then there really isn't 'progress', there may be change, and it may be more advantageous to you - but it is just as likely that it is not advantageous to someone else.  So the question appeals to some moral law beyond the individual or group.  For that you need an objective lawgiver - aka - God.  If you think I'm wrong, then tell me how you determined a moral standard that should be imposed on others that is objective for all.  

<----- Here is the objective lawgiver I need. You are free to call me God if it makes you happy. But please do not worship me, it is a little creepy...

For an atheist, he is his own god, which is quite depressing and sad for you.  There is no morally objective truth.  If there is no god - then you are your own judge or those more powerful than you are your judge.  Right and wrong are arbitrary and dependent upon what the individual wants.  What a sad and inferior moral system.  

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

I do not know... You have to pick from millions of gods, and I do not need to pick from anything. Why are you feeling sad for me? Your predicament is much more difficult.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

JulesKorngold said:

Not so much.

Evidence for progress:

• Practices once deemed acceptable, like slavery, child marriage, and public executions, are now widely condemned.
• Science and technology have improved living standards for many, alleviating poverty and disease.
  

Evidence against progress:

• Wars, genocide, and continued social inequalities suggest ongoing moral failings.
• New technologies like AI and genetic engineering raise ethical concerns and potential misuse.
  

For the atheist this is a logically nonsensical question.  You can't speak of progress - there may be change.  But progress suggests an ideal to move toward.  If you believe that you are just the product of random reactions, then there really isn't 'progress', there may be change, and it may be more advantageous to you - but it is just as likely that it is not advantageous to someone else.  So the question appeals to some moral law beyond the individual or group.  For that you need an objective lawgiver - aka - God.  If you think I'm wrong, then tell me how you determined a moral standard that should be imposed on others that is objective for all.  

Please stop speaking for atheists. 

We can gauge morality by first understanding it's a concept that's bigger than our individual selves. It must benefit people as a whole while offering protections simultaneously. In doing this we achieve both objectivity and subsequently respect for one another. A human concept if mutually practiced by everyone can become greater than humanity itself. And in theory would need not be imposed as then you begin to transition into law.

Atheists and theists get their morals from this same source. The atheist generally understands this though they may add or subtract here or there. The theist understands morality is bigger than themselves but with one difference, they believe the objectivity comes from fictitious writings giving them the illusion of some nonhuman source lending objectivity. Of course this only means they're chasing the author or authors ideas of morality, still a human concept.

You believe that your morals are 'objective'.  That's very sus.  They are anything but that.  You said that if atheists work together they can become 'greater'- that terminology speaks of a higher goal.  That goal is either yours or a groups.  Neither of which is 'objective'  Other individuals or groups can disagree with your goal.  And why should they agree with you?  Why should anyone behave because you said so?  What is your authority?  You are but merely a product of random processes, possibly bad chemical connections, made just gas, certainly not anything created by a creator, as you say.  Your standards exist only in your imagination and have no real meaning to people who take reality seriously.  Your 'greater' goal is just your faith claim.  That's all it could ever be for an atheist. 

Yes it's objective because you go with the group beyond yourself and your own personal definition of moral. That's all you have too. You have no evidence of your special sky daddy. You follow your peers ideas of morality just like anyone else. So if you concede you have no objective source at all, (since you reject a group beyond yourself can be objective) then I'll concede the same. But as long as you pretend your mythical goddess is your source of objectivity then I get to keep mine. What is your authority? Fantasy books or mythical gods don't count. It must be based in reality and not looney land. My greater goal is demonstrated in everyday life where yours resides in the heads fictitious writers which emphasizes the fact I'm right. Morality is a human concept in which we try to be better ourselves. You by faith, not fact, assert a magical being to pretend morality came from somewhere else but it's still came from human authors. 

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

I do not know... You have to pick from millions of gods, and I do not need to pick from anything. Why are you feeling sad for me? Your predicament is much more difficult.

Your plight is much worse.  When you cry out to 'god' for help - your the only help you got.  That's incredibly depressing and sad for you.  When Barbara Commiskey asked people to pray for her as she was on her death bed, at least 350 people prayed for her and wrote cards to her stating that fact - even though she had not been able to walk for a decade.  She got up, instantly was healed of her blindness, healed of her internal organ failures, and danced before her god.  Her God showed up and showed out for her.  But you, well, you are all you have coming.  That should be very depressing to you - I know if you were all I had coming to help me, it would depress me.  If I am going to believe in something, I at least want it to be something helpful to believe in.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

Your plight is much worse.  When you cry out to 'god' for help - your the only help you got.  That's incredibly depressing and sad for you.  When Barbara Commiskey asked people to pray for her as she was on her death bed, at least 350 people prayed for her and wrote cards to her stating that fact - even though she had not been able to walk for a decade.  She got up, instantly was healed of her blindness, healed of her internal organ failures, and danced before her god.  Her God showed up and showed out for her.  But you, well, you are all you have coming.  That should be very depressing to you - I know if you were all I had coming to help me, it would depress me.  If I am going to believe in something, I at least want it to be something helpful to believe in.

Well, since I never cry out to "god" for help, it is not really a problem. Someone who has to do that - now that person has issues!

I also have never had depression, so cannot really relate to what you are saying. I agree though that me having to help you with your illness would not be optimal, since I am not a medical specialist. Good to know that you do not need medical services and can just pray to Vishnu and get healed! More space in hospitals for us common folks.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@JulesKorngold ;  Humanity, today, is approaching the vileness, demonic compromise, evident in the Adamic-Noahic generations and their compromise with the demonic that culminated in the annihilation of humanity save eight. 

The burning-butchering-dismemberment of children in the womb celebrated by their mother, their abortionist, the government; the celebration of every form of human sexual defilement know in history is now celebrated in the streets and protected by civil and criminal law...the unconscionable defilement of LGBTQAI++...this is the work of Satan...seeking to butcher and mutilate and sexually defile innocent children with puberty blockers, sexual reassignment mutilation by "doctors." 

Progressive idiocy reflected in socialism, Marxism, the insanity of do-gooder virtue signaling buffoons who advocate for addiction, crime, homelessness, filth, open borders, mental illness, spiritual illness, in the name of diversity-equity-inclusion. 

No, society is not moving towards morality but moving toward judgment and Hell...may God's will be done.

Bogan

@just_sayin

 No.  What is right and what is wrong is usually decided by the entire community.    Although, it can be from a top down approach   As an example, look at how treansgenderism today is not only being supported by the elites. it is being legally enforced in some countries like Canada and the UK by the elites.     But although you as a religious person need to believe that morality is carved in stone, that never happens.    Morality changes as different times call for different group survival strategies.   If Christian morality never changed, we would still be burning women for being witches, who did not have enough supernatural powers to get themselves a square meal.  

just_sayin

Bogan said:

@just_sayin

 No.  What is right and what is wrong is usually decided by the entire community.    Although, it can be from a top down approach   As an example, look at how treansgenderism today is not only being supported by the elites. it is being legally enforced in some countries like Canada and the UK by the elites.     But although you as a religious person need to believe that morality is carved in stone, that never happens.    Morality changes as different times call for different group survival strategies.   If Christian morality never changed, we would still be burning women for being witches, who did not have enough supernatural powers to get themselves a square meal.  

Bogie, thank you for being so useful.  You have pointed out how that whether  it is individual or group values are subject to who is the most powerful, which is what I've been saying about atheistic based moral systems.  You claim Christian moral systems have changed - I would point out that you have conflated theocracies with democracies which Christians are a part of, but not necessarily the sole decision makers.  I appreciate your help.  I would differentiate cultural systems which reflect more than just Christian sentiments with moral and ethical systems.  

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

How do you reconcile the claim that Christianity provides objective morals with the fact that there are over 30,000 Christian denominations disagreeing on morals today? I understand objective facts as something independent of one's opinion: if two people jump off the bridge, both will fall down - in this sense, the way gravity acts on a human being can be determined objectively. In what sense are Christian morals objective, and what experiments can one perform to settle all disagreements between different denominations?

I think you are confusing objectivity with external authoritativeness. It is absolutely true that someone who does not follow any gods does not have what a Christian or a Muslim has - the text to go to when trying to figure out what is right and what is wrong. It seems untrue, however, that those texts are in any way objective, or that their choice is objective, or that their interpretation is objective. You can pick two books - the Bible and the Quran - and get completely different moral prescriptions. You can even pick two non-religious books - Mein Kampf and Das Kapital - and get completely different moral prescriptions. I fail to see where the source of the alleged objectivity is.

Bogan

@just_sayin ;

 Firstly,  Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't God instruct Christians to "suffer not a witch to live"?       Okay, so how come Christians are no longer obeying your non existent God's direct instruction? 

Secondly, since your God does not even exist, then every direct instruction from your non existent God was in fact invented by somebody from the priestly caste,    Which is a perfect example of morality being imposed top down by the elites, who can be the inventors and disseminators of morality, which they then can impose on the peasantry.    Unsurprisingly, this morality mainly benefits themselves.   Discovering "witches' and executing them was a very profitable business model for the church and their "Witchfinder Generals".    Hundreds of thousands of mainly independently wealthy European women had all of their lands and possessions confiscated by the church and the state before they were executed, sometimes in  the cruelest possible way.     

just_sayin

Bogan said:

@just_sayin ;

 Firstly,  Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't God instruct Christians to "suffer not a witch to live"?       Okay, so how come Christians are no longer obeying your non existent God's direct instruction? 

Secondly, since your God does not even exist, then every direct instruction from your non existent God was in fact invented by somebody from the priestly caste,    Which is a perfect example of morality being imposed top down by the elites, who can be the inventors and disseminators of morality, which they then can impose on the peasantry.    Unsurprisingly, this morality mainly benefits themselves.   Discovering "witches' and executing them was a very profitable business model for the church and their "Witchfinder Generals".    Hundreds of thousands of mainly independently wealthy European women had all of their lands and possessions confiscated by the church and the state before they were executed, sometimes in  the cruelest possible way.     

Bogie, what a great question!  You are so helpful.  While in the Old Testament the command was to kill witches (which without getting technical the word used, isn't the exact same thing as modern witches), yet the New Testament does not have such a command.  The OT was directed at establishing the nation of Israel - a type of theocracy, while the NT is focused on spreading the message throughout the world.  Not only are witches not killed in the NT, but Paul leads one to Christ and casts a demon out of her in Acts.  Often, people will make accusations against Christians based on the Old Testament, but Christian believers are not under the old covenant - you see this with regards to several issues often brought up by unknowing atheists looking to score points but just revealing their ignorance on the issue.  The distinctions between the 2 covenants are mentioned throughout the New Testament. and the Old Testament mentions multiple times how that the old covenant will be replaced by a new one.  I'm so glad you asked.  You saved someone else from having to ask that question.  Thank you. 

Bogan

@just_sayin quote  

So, you are claiming that a direct command by your God to kill witches can be ignored, because the new version of the bible, which is more based upon the teachings of a pacifist Jewish philosopher whom the church heretically claimed was the divine son of their one God, did not mention whether God's direct command had been superseded?     The fact is that despite the existence of the New Testament, Christian church elitists preferred to stick with God's direct command in the Old testament.     If the Old testament is obsolete and the direct commands of God can be ignored, then why is it still a part of the Bible?   

just_sayin

Bogan said:

@just_sayin quote  

So, you are claiming that a direct command by your God to kill witches can be ignored, because the new version of the bible, which is more based upon the teachings of a pacifist Jewish philosopher whom the church heretically claimed was the divine son of their one God, did not mention whether God's direct command had been superseded?     The fact is that despite the existence of the New Testament, Christian church elitists preferred to stick with God's direct command in the Old testament.     If the Old testament is obsolete and the direct commands of God can be ignored, then why is it still a part of the Bible?   

In Jeremiah chapter 31 (Old Testament, Bogie)  it says:

Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them, “declares the LORD. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” 

The purpose of the old covenant is different than the new one - about 10 - 20% of the New Testament address this issue specifically.  The purpose and group of the old covenant is different than the new.  The Old testament still has value and can teach us about God, I'm not arguing that it doesn't.  I am pointing out that ceremonial commandments and those related to the establishment of the nation of Israel no longer apply though.  As Hebrews 8:6 (New Testament, Bogie) point out 'But now Jesus, our High Priest, has been given a ministry that is far superior to the old priesthood, for he is the one who mediates for us a far better covenant with God, based on better promises.'.  Hebrews 10:1 (New Testament) adds 'The old system under the law of Moses was only a shadow, a dim preview of the good things to come, not the good things themselves. The sacrifices under that system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship.'

I appreciate your thoughtful question.  I'm sure you are not the only one who has had it.  

Bogan

Well, a cynic like myself would claim that whichever clergy wrote this was trying to distance Christianity from Judaism, especially since the Jews never accepted Jacob bar Joseph as their messiah.    For centuries, the Christian church accepted the Old Testament command from God to "suffer not a witch to live."      This resulted in hundreds of thousands of innocent women being robbed by the church and the state of their property, and being murdered in the most horrific ways.       Your God had a moral responsibility to stop this insanely cruel mass murder and mass theft, because it was his own commandment which ordered it, and it was being done in His name.     The fact that He did not bother to even clarify his own supposedly superseded command, is a good reason to suppose that he does not exist.   And if He does exist, to say that He is a pitiless and irresponsible arsehole.     He is certainly no God of love.