Originally posted by Ushgarak
What the heck does the betterment of others matter at all? In a Godless universe, none of it matters at all. The future doesn't matter, and ultimately other people don't matter. Only yourself matters- in any rational sense.
This only applys if the person is determined to be a bachalor their entire lives. I believe bettering the lives of your children is a huge reason why the future would matter. Anyone who has had children woudl tell you that they become their entire lives. This could be a reason for philanthropy.
Originally posted by finti
well from my point of view and how I look at things that statement, to me, would be false
You'd have to give me a good reason why. How could any of it matter? There is nothing for it to matter TO. You only think it matters because... well, because you THINK it matters. You didn't have to think that, and opportunities to be happy may be far more plentiful if you didn't. That might make you a far less nice person- but so what? And who is to say what is nice anyway?
Originally posted by Tptmanno1
This only applys if the person is determined to be a bachalor their entire lives. I believe bettering the lives of your children is a huge reason why the future would matter. Anyone who has had children woudl tell you that they become their entire lives. This could be a reason for philanthropy.
And I could just as easily say that is down to irrationality. Why not be a bachelor if that is the happiest way to be- which it certainly is for a whole lot of people over history, who took women for pleasure when they wanted them and didn't get stuck with commitments to family.
The fact is that the lives of your children are actually spectacularly irrelevant. What does any of it matter once you are dead? Once you are dead, you are dead, you are worm food; nothing anyone says or thinks can affect you, you will be the same whether your kids do great or crap.
If you can tell me something else that counts, in this set-up, more than your own happiness, I would be interested to hear it.
What about the fathers who abandon their kids and lead happy lives never having to care for them ever... just WHY is that wrong? Tell me why they should not do that if it would be the happier option for them. Because it is tough on the kids? So what? Free of the burden of conscience that doesn't matter to them. And there ARE people like that, and they ARE happier for it.
You'd have to give me a good reason why. How could any of it matter? There is nothing for it to matter TO. You only think it matters because... well, because you THINK it matters. You didn't have to think that, and opportunities to be happy may be far more plentiful if you didn't. That might make you a far less nice person- but so what? And who is to say what is nice anyway?the best reason I can give is that IT IS HOW I AM. I get glad when others do good. Dont get me wrong I dont wish that for everybody. But in my job with betting it makes me glad when someone wins big, I feel for them and welcome them for their fortune. It matters because I know it matters not only think it. That whats make you go on, if not you end up like a grumpy old prune ,not everyone is a Scrooge you know
Originally posted by Ushgarak
And I could just as easily say that is down to irrationality. Why not be a bachelor if that is the happiest way to be- which it certainly is for a whole lot of people over history, who took women for pleasure when they wanted them and didn't get stuck with commitments to family.The fact is that the lives of your children are actually spectacularly irrelevant. What does any of it matter once you are dead? Once you are dead, you are dead, you are worm food; nothing anyone says or thinks can affect you, you will be the same whether your kids do great or crap.
If you can tell me something else that counts, in this set-up, more than your own happiness, I would be interested to hear it.
What about the fathers who abandon their kids and lead happy lives never having to care for them ever... just WHY is that wrong? Tell me why they should not do that if it would be the happier option for them. Because it is tough on the kids? So what? Free of the burden of conscience that doesn't matter to them. And there ARE people like that, and they ARE happier for it.
I see what your trying to say, If no one has any spiritual consequence than why does anything matter?
My answer is that it's instinctual. Deep inside us there is an instint for heratage. Everyone wants to be remembered after they die, thats th reason for empires and such. People want to be remembered. Thats why people persue familys. Thats the easiest, most direct way of being assured that your are remembered. The bachalors either have found another way for that to happen, or are the oddball who just don't care, who decide that it doesn't matter if they are remembered. They might be missing that instinct or something, I really don't know.
About the fathers who abandon their kids.
Most people see it as running away from responsibility, not as going to live a happier life. They are the people who are like the ones who never have a family, they don't care about being remembered. They are in the same catagory as the ones who never get married or never have kids. And there wil always be people like that.
Ush> Then I misunderstood your last post. To me you appeared to be asking if being free of moral restrictions wouldn’t make us happier.
“I was saying that morals deprive you of opportunities to be more happy than you are.”
How?
”Morals look like a curse in that regard- and we are living in fairy tale land if we think people who do 'good' (whatever that is in the world of the atheist) are always going to do well and be happy; we know full well the bastards do a lot better than the saints.”
But are they happier?
Ah! Before you reply I’d rather you give it a second thought. DOING better in a material sense is not the straight way to living a happy and content life.
“What the heck does the betterment of others matter at all?” Because I – and the species Homo sapiens as well – are social creatures. We require interactions with others of our kind to function. So the betterment of others is in my own interest, as I cannot function without other people. Love and sex are very important to the well-being of humans. To have that you need at least ONE other human.
“Humans don't HAVE to be social creatures, and when some of the happiest- perhaps THE happiest- are the most immoral types you can get... can someone actually give any consolation to the people that have a code of honour and try to follow morals and yet are utterly miserable?”
How do you know that the happiest people are the most immoral? Who are we talking about here? And in what way are they immoral?
eehhh I feel like anti Ush here, Ush shouldnt be the subject cause Ush raises some really good questions for the sake of arguments, we reply but it seems like one way street towards his well thought considered arguments........me one of them. sorry ush you know i love a good discusion but not one sided tough. I hope you see......well you know
Originally posted by Ushgarak
What the heck does the betterment of others matter at all? In a Godless universe, none of it matters at all. The future doesn't matter, and ultimately other people don't matter. Only yourself matters- in any rational sense.Humans don't HAVE to be social creatures, and when some of the happiest- perhaps THE happiest- are the most immoral types you can get... can someone actually give any consolation to the people that have a code of honour and try to follow morals and yet are utterly miserable?
I actually doubt it.
Hey Ushgarak. I live in a godless universe and you are correct in saying that nothing we do really matters in the grand scheme of the universe. It wouldn't matter if I lived like Hitler or Mother Teresa because once I die, I am gone and eventually I would be forgotten. I don't know if only the Self matters, although at this stage in my life that’s is true. There isn't anything or anyone in my life at the moment that I would be willing to die for. Although smaller sacrifices aren't out of the question. I don't live for the sake of helping others but if a friend or family member needs help I wouldn't hesitate to do so. There is a good feeling that comes with helping people that is rewarding to the Self. And so in that way, you could have an atheist version of Mother Teresa (obviously not a Mother though 😛 ) who lives for charity because they gain great satisfaction from it.
All humans are social creatures in the most basic sense. I don't know who you are referring to when you say that some people are THE happiest because they ignore morality. I assume you mean people in positions of power because of their money, connections or business skills. Western society seems to sacrifice morals for the bottom line. But you will find that even the richest most powerful people feel the need to surround themselves with friends and 'yes men' even if these 'friends' only value them because of their possessions.
As for people who put great value on their morals or honour and are miserable because of it, I'm yet to find an example of such a person. Many people who value their morals this highly gain great satisfaction because of it. But as I said before, in some cases morality and society don't go hand-in-hand. I can imagine people losing their livelihood and all they've worked for because of their morals. Perhaps some societies breed immorality? (Eg~ Person 'A' screws person 'B' out of his livelihood because person 'B' has 10% less morality than person 'A'. In a few years time, person 'B' is screwed out of his livelihood by person 'C' because he has even less morality than person 'B'. And so on.)
There is little consolation for losing something wether you hold a high moral code or not. What seems more important is how you deal with it and continue living. Many people turn to religion for consolation when they are weak or miserable. I can't say for certain that all religions are a bad idea but many people become a part of them for the wrong reasons. These people develop a dependency on religion and self deception which is bad faith. Others seem to fall into despair and develop other addictions to alcohol, drugs, ect. They let their loss cast a shadow over them and ride them into the ground for the rest of their lives. Better to learn from your mistakes than to dwell on them. What I'm saying is consolation doesn’t seem that important, more a persons resilience and willingness to look to the future rather than dwelling on their past losses.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you can tell me something else that counts, in this set-up, more than your own happiness, I would be interested to hear it.What about the fathers who abandon their kids and lead happy lives never having to care for them ever... just WHY is that wrong? Tell me why they should not do that if it would be the happier option for them. Because it is tough on the kids? So what? Free of the burden of conscience that doesn't matter to them. And there ARE people like that, and they ARE happier for it.
Nothing that I can think of is more important that a persons happiness in life. (As long as pursuit of that happiness doesn't impact negativly on the happiness of others).
As for fathers who leave their children for their own happiness, they are simply fools. It is wrong because they created that life. I don't believe that leading a bachelors life, or getting married and never having children is wrong. But when you create a life you must be responsible for you actions, just like any other choice you make in life. These things do happen though, but just because something is wrong doesn't nessecarily mean anything can be done about it.
Ok, lemme see here... I note no-one tried to dissuade the father from abandoning his child in return for happiness... because you CAN'T... if it is going to make him happy there is absolutely nothing rational you can say to change his mind. And not only does this happen, I have seen it personally.
Tpt, you say most people see it as running away from responsibility rather than leading a happy life. Well... more fool them. What other people think is of no consequence at all- if the father is happy that is pretty much the end of the story.
You also say everyone wants to be remembered instinctually. I say that is dodging my point- I would say that what our instinct it is irrelevant, that is not a rational reason for anything. If the happiest people are the ones who abandon that instinct, then it all looks rather bloody silly.
BF- "Well, helping other people and being a generally good person is a lot more enjoyable to a lot of people than being mean and cruel, Ush."
Not if you enjoy the things that result from being mean and cruel, and they are a hell of a lot easier. Bullies enjoy school more than the bullied; seen that myself rather a lot. It's only more enjoyable to those people because they think it SHOULD be more enjoyable- bit of a waste of effort. Far simpler just to look out for yourself; give me a good reason not to. At the very least, if you find a person who clearly enjoys being cruel more than being good, can you give a good reason why he should not go with that? And as being selfish is easier than being selfless, that looks more rational to me.
Finti- again, that's good for you now you feel that way. But if you didn't feel that way? Would it not have been easier if you never had? Again, from an objective point of view that you feel like that just looks like irrational conditioning.
Omega- you ask why, I say I don't need to discuss why people who are willing to not let morals influence their road to well-being with anyone who lives in the real world. Use your eyes.
Are they happier? Yes. Sorry... but yes. You do seem to be in danger of living in that fairy tale world. And doing better in a material sense is certainly the easisest way to a happy life- it works for a LOT of people. Sure as hell would for me; I am not going to hide behind false morality to claim otherwise (as I suspect a lot of people do)
(I note, btw, that a lot of people are trying to hold onto this dream that rich people are somehow inwardly lonely if they don't have the things that we think are more morally acceptable ways to happiness, like love and family etc... sorry, again, whilst that is possible, to apply that in general is again hopelessly naive)
"Because I – and the species Homo sapiens as well – are social creatures. We require interactions with others of our kind to function. So the betterment of others is in my own interest, as I cannot function without other people. Love and sex are very important to the well-being of humans. To have that you need at least ONE other human."
Says you. Sounds like a piece of false comfort to me. I see plenty of happy bachelors who just use women (or men) when need be, without any emotional hold. And immoral people can have friends- they are just willing to use and abuse them, as well as have fun with them, and don;t go thinking that means they always lose the friends. Sorry, but the person who prioritises himself first and always acts for self-advantage is certainly not denying himself anything happiness wise. Why do people want to perpetuate this childish myth that the pauper in love is happier and more fulfilled than the rich selfish bastard? Sorry... no. And again, just because something is instinctual does not mean it is BEST.
Again, Omega, I don't intend to spend time demonstrating why it's the selfish bastards, on average, who get ahead in life and are happier for it. If you want to dismiss my argument because of that, feel free- I would rather spend my time discussing this sort of thing with people who do not need such total basics explained in detail- i.e. everyone else who has replied. And if you seriously don't think it... I think you are too blind for me to take this any further with.
Whiteeagle- I'm glad you are not afraid to face the logical extension of atheist thinking, though many would say the good feeling that comes from helping others is a purely selfish one, so you may as well get your selfish kicks in easier places. However, you do seem to be buying into the 'rich but lonely' myth, and trying to place social instinct above rational self-advancment.
"As for people who put great value on their morals or honour and are miserable because of it, I'm yet to find an example of such a person"
Good LORD! Either you have barely met anyone or your insightful ability is seriously impaired. I know dozens, I count myself, and I think Fire knew where I was going as well. I know for a fact I would be much happier if my morals had not obstructed me from certain opportunities for self-advancment. I did not do them because I considered them wrong- but without a doubt I am far worse off because of it, and no vague feeling of well-doing is going to make up for that. In a Godless universe, where none of it matters, it is incredibly hard to come up with a rational reason why I did that other than to satisfy a ridiculous irrationality inside me.
"There is little consolation for losing something wether you hold a high moral code or not. What seems more important is how you deal with it and continue living. Many people turn to religion for consolation when they are weak or miserable. I can't say for certain that all religions are a bad idea but many people become a part of them for the wrong reasons. These people develop a dependency on religion and self deception which is bad faith. Others seem to fall into despair and develop other addictions to alcohol, drugs, ect. They let their loss cast a shadow over them and ride them into the ground for the rest of their lives. Better to learn from your mistakes than to dwell on them. What I'm saying is consolation doesn’t seem that important, more a persons resilience and willingness to look to the future rather than dwelling on their past losses."
Well, I was keen for this not to become anti-religious; that is going on far too much elsewhere. As for your tips on overcoming loss- fair play. But I don't think that addresses the issue.
As I said in PM to Finti, as I am basically an atheist myself, I am not necessarily here trying to come up with uncounterable views that tear away the very being of atheism. Omega wanted a discussion and I am giving one- with questions I think it is very important that ethically minded atheists ask themselves. That is part Devil's Advocate, and part me wanting to hear responses to questions I have asked myself; I am not answering myself so as not to influence anyone's thinking. I am also doing it because I think the dangerous assumption that atheism is inherently better than religious belief- which is starting to permeate the atmosphere- must at the very least be challenged if it wants to prove itself. Detaycnyourself from your feelings and examine things rationally and coldly and the whole thing can look damn silly very quickly- and atheism cannot afford to be fuzzy, like religion can, if it wants to be so morally upright.
Originally posted by WhiteEagle
Nothing that I can think of is more important that a persons happiness in life. (As long as pursuit of that happiness doesn't impact negativly on the happiness of others).As for fathers who leave their children for their own happiness, they are simply fools. It is wrong because they created that life. I don't believe that leading a bachelors life, or getting married and never having children is wrong. But when you create a life you must be responsible for you actions, just like any other choice you make in life. These things do happen though, but just because something is wrong doesn't nessecarily mean anything can be done about it.
YOU say they are fools. But if nothing else matters and they are much happier for it... what the heck is foolish about that? What you- or anyone- says they SHOULD do could not be more irrelevant. They are happier- end of story. There is no 'must', because none of it matters, remember?
Also, what does it matter how much your happiness impacts negatively on othes if it does not negatively impact on yours? Morally? So what, it doesn't MATTER!
And it's not even morally, because if none of it matters, then you make your own morals.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Whiteeagle- I'm glad you are not afraid to face the logical extension of atheist thinking, though many would say the good feeling that comes from helping others is a purely selfish one, so you may as well get your selfish kicks in easier places. However, you do seem to be buying into the 'rich but lonely' myth, and trying to place social instinct above rational self-advancment.Good LORD! Either you have barely met anyone or your insightful ability is seriously impaired. I know dozens, I count myself, and I think Fire knew where I was going as well. I know for a fact I would be much happier if my morals had not obsctuetced me from certain opportunities for self-advancment. I did not do them because I consudered them wrong- but without a doubt I am far worse off because of it, and no vague feeling of well-doing is going to make up for that. In a Godless universe, where none of it matters, it is incredibly hard to come up with a rational reason why I did that.
Well, I was keen for this not to become anti-religious; that is going on far too much elsewhere. As for your tips on overcoming loss0 fair play. But I don't think that addresses the issue.
atheism cannot afford to be fuzzy, like religion can, if it wants to be so morally upright.
YOU say they are fools. But if nothing else matters and they are much happier for it... what the heck is foolish about that? What you- or anyone- says they SHOULD do could not be more irrelevant. They are happier- end of story. There is no 'must', because none of it matters, remember?
Also, what does it matter how much your happiness impacts negatively on othes if it does not negatively impact on yours? Morally? So what, it doesn't MATTER!
You are right, the good feeling that comes from helping others is a selfish one. But in that case there is nothing wrong with being selfish as it is beneficial to the helper and the one in need of help. I don't really believe the 'rich but lonely' myth. It seems more like the 'rich and ignorant'. Money can make some people happy but I know for sure it wouldn't come close to completing me. I suppose a fools happiness is just as good as any but someone like me desires more than material positions. Although I'm not foolish enough to say I could be happy without money and material goods, I just don't centre my entire life around them.
Heh, I didn't mean to get all anti-religious but it seems I did 😮 . Although I mostly meant that people turn to religion for consolation for life’s losses, wether that's a good thing is another issue. Being miserable is usually letting past mistakes or pain influence your future in a negative way.
It may seem like I contradicted myself earlier but what I meant was that I don't personally know of anyone who has lost something because of their morality. I did also later say that I could imagine people losing their livelihood because of their morals.
I don't know what you meant saying that part of my previous statement didn’t address this issue. You asked if there was any consolation to those who lose out due to their moral code. I basically said no, not really, but it isn't really that important.
Again, Just because something is wrong to do doesn't always mean anything can be done about it. They are fools, just as anyone who doesn't take responsibility for their actions is. I can't even begin to explain how getting a woman pregnant, creating a life and denying/ignoring your responsibility for it is wrong. Anyone who can't see the error in that should go back to living in caves.
You're right when you say there is no 'must' in life. Man is completely free in his own actions. It is the consequences of these actions that must be considered. As for my happiness? If it makes me happy to punch people in the face then there is nothing to stop me doing that. But I think that second of happiness would be instantly countered when they punched me back. Negative actions breed negative actions. Karma is true in that sense.
I understand your question and appreciate that it isn't another debate over the existence of god. We must acknowledge that religion does not breed morals nor does atheism. Morals are a human idea and unique to each person. People must realise that atheism is not unpunished freedom to be a bastard and religion is not an instant ticket to salvation.
Ush> you said Athiesm and morals are irrational. Well humans are irrational as well. we do things that just don't make sence. Why does one Run into a burning building to try and save a child? It doesn't make sence in the simpleist ways. It voids what anyone says about self preservence. Why in war will a soldier jump on a live grenade to save his buddies?
In this we are all fools, we all do things that make no logical sence. none. We try to be logical but in short it is impossible for us to be. We could not exist if we were. It make snece to shoot someone for their money. but if everyoen did that we'd all be shot and our species extinct. Our very being is defined by our illogicality.
If Atheism makes no logical sence, then it is human, more human that some religions.
"You are right, the good feeling that comes from helping others is a selfish one."
Actually, I don't think I AM right. I severely question that line of reasoning, especially applied generically. But never mind that for now.
"But in that case there is nothing wrong with being selfish as it is beneficial to the helper and the one in need of help"
Ah, I disagree there though; I think selfish actions do not become morally acceptable because they do good by COINCIDENCE, which is effectively what the deal is here. If you didn't feel good about it you wouldn't do it, and that makes its moral value rather futile. Objectively, in isolation, it looks positive but as a reinforcement of selfish behaviour it is morally questionable.
"Money can make some people happy but I know for sure it wouldn't come close to completing me. I suppose a fools happiness is just as good as any but someone like me desires more than material positions. Although I'm not foolish enough to say I could be happy without money and material goods, I just don't centre my entire life around them."
Well, again, I'll just say the same thing back to this- it would not make you happy... that's YOUR problem. You cannot even opbjectively call it a fools happinbess- happiness is happiness, indistinguishable. If you DIDN'T desire more, and COULD be happy with simple material possessions, everything would be a whole lot simpler and probably better for you. Again, we come back to the irrationality of it all.
"I basically said no, not really, but it isn't really that important."
Sounds staggeringly arrogant, that- it sure as hell is important to those losing out from it. No coping strategy makes up for simple lack of happiness. Better to not have to cope in the first place.
"Again, Just because something is wrong to do doesn't always mean anything can be done about it. They are fools, just as anyone who doesn't take responsibility for their actions is. I can't even begin to explain how getting a woman pregnant, creating a life and denying/ignoring your responsibility for it is wrong. Anyone who can't see the error in that should go back to living in caves."
Again- fairy land. By YOUR view it is wrong, but these people, who do NOT go back to living in caves, instead go on to lead lives all the happier for what they did, and no maount of you calling them 'wrong' will change that, and no amount of calling them 'fools' will change the fact that they are now leading a happier life with no personal consequence. I cannot see that as foolish if they get away with it. You just want it to be in some way ultimately wrong... but it is not. There is no such thing as ultimately wrong, remember?
"You're right when you say there is no 'must' in life. Man is completely free in his own actions. It is the consequences of these actions that must be considered. As for my happiness? If it makes me happy to punch people in the face then there is nothing to stop me doing that. But I think that second of happiness would be instantly countered when they punched me back. Negative actions breed negative actions. Karma is true in that sense."
Again, very hopeful. History and real life is littered with plentiful examples of people who get away with it just fine. Karma is not even REMOTELY true. If you are going to hit someone who can hit you back, that's just you being dumb. Hit someone who CAN'T hit back... and you do just fine. What about all the uncaught rapists? There are huge amounts of them, they get what they want and never any comeback. It is silly to think that negativity always breeds negativity. If it makes you happy and you know you can get away with it... why not do it?
"I understand your question and appreciate that it isn't another debate over the existence of god. We must acknowledge that religion does not breed morals nor does atheism. Morals are a human idea and unique to each person. People must realise that atheism is not unpunished freedom to be a bastard and religion is not an instant ticket to salvation."
But religion DOES breed morals... that's not the end of the story, but it does, and furthermore it can give clear reasons why. Atheism finds that far harder to do.
-
Tpt- basically I agree that a certain amount of irrationality is important to a person, which answers a question Omega asked me a long time ago. I suspect Omega wants to see all her altruistic actions as ultimately rational... but I also suspect she would be very wrong to do so.
But I cannot necessarily see that making it objectively the smart thing to do... it is tantamount to saying atheism can work because humans are basically stupid...
I hope I read the posts right...but from what I did read, from this it would seem that the point being made by Ush is this:
If...an atheist that believes in no god and does not subscribe to one of a variety of religions...or in a quasi-mystical philosophical disciplines...
then the very idea of morality whether good or bad-that which is decided by those who believe in morality-is a contradiction to being an atheist.
that an atheist should be free to do what he/she feels without guilt or remorse whether to themselves or to those around them...AND that those actions should not be labelled good or bad for that would be an assignation of morality to those actions...am i correct
for an atheist being what he/she is should have no constraints in whatever they wish to do because they cannot suffer the consequences as one individual would that places morality high on that one individual's list...
in essence...an atheist is neither moral or immoral,
"Actually, I don't think I AM right. I severely question that line of reasoning, especially applied generically. But never mind that for now."
Well I don't mean to be blunt, but you are right . The good feeling you can get from helping someone is felt only by you, it is centred completely around the self.
"Ah, I disagree there though; I think selfish actions do not become morally acceptable because they do good by COINCIDENCE, which is effectively what the deal is here. If you didn't feel good about it you wouldn't do it, and that makes its moral value rather futile. Objectively, in isolation, it looks positive but as a reinforcement of selfish behaviour it is morally questionable."
True, it would be nice if all generous acts were committed out of concern for the fellow man. Although I doubt that anyone in need of help would care what the helpers motivations were, as long as they provided assistance. While the action may not be based on the helper’s morals, how can you complain when the person in need of help is being helped? That is the most important thing, if morals are involved so much the better. Not all-selfish behaviour is the same, it can have a negative or positive affect on other people involved. I don’t think that coincidence makes selfish acts morally acceptable. But if people's selfish tendencies can help others in need, why must the moral value of their actions come into question?
"Well, again, I'll just say the same thing back to this- it would not make you happy... that's YOUR problem. You cannot even opbjectively call it a fools happinbess- happiness is happiness, indistinguishable. If you DIDN'T desire more, and COULD be happy with simple material possessions, everything would be a whole lot simpler and probably better for you. Again, we come back to the irrationality of it all."
That is true. A persons happiness is completely individual to them. I once heard somewhere that 'happiness is 9/10 perception, 1/10 reality'. Sounds about right. But if I were to 'lower' my perception of happiness and what brings it, I would also be sacrificing other things. Mainly my point of view concerning the universe, life and the way this world works. You can hardly contemplate your existence if all you're really concerned about is how much cash is in your wallet. It's a personal choice. I know that this example isn't quite the same, but if you were given the option for brain surgery (essentially, a lobotomy) which would make you somewhat of a vegetable but guarantee that you would feel complete happiness for the rest of your natural life, would you? I don't think you would. Because although you may be 'happy', you wouldn’t be what you consider to be 'YOU'.
As for happiness being happiness, I did say that a fool’s happiness is as good as any. Please read my posts more carefully.
"Sounds staggeringly arrogant, that- it sure as hell is important to those losing out from it. No coping strategy makes up for simple lack of happiness. Better to not have to cope in the first place."
Blunt perhaps. Arrogant? Hardly. The question was, what consolation can be given to those who lose out because of their moral standing. There is no REAL consolation. Sometimes good guys lose. There is no grand, supreme justice for all. If you want to call me arrogant for saying that, then go ahead. In the wake of a loss, how you deal with it is most important. If a man loses his job, comes home and falls into despair, he may let that one loss negatively impact on the rest of his life. Although it's completely natural to get upset over losing something, I don’t deny that. But you are faced with a choice afterwards, let the past be just that or dwell on it for the rest of your life. Of course it's better not to have to cope in the first place, but I don't see how that is possible. You ARE going to lose at some point in your life. Wether you are a person of high or low moral quality.
"Again- fairy land. By YOUR view it is wrong, but these people, who do NOT go back to living in caves, instead go on to lead lives all the happier for what they did, and no amount of you calling them 'wrong' will change that, and no amount of calling them 'fools' will change the fact that they are now leading a happier life with no personal consequence. I cannot see that as foolish if they get away with it. You just want it to be in some way ultimately wrong... but it is not. There is no such thing as ultimately wrong, remember?"
Did I every say that my disapproval, or for that matter anyone's disapproval would dissuade them from doing that? Again, read my posts more carefully. It is wrong to create a life and not acknowledge your responsibility for it. Man is free in his actions and thus is cursed to total responsibility for them. Are you of the mind that if I were to kill a man it would only be wrong if I were caught and punished? You say that the father who leaves his wife child isn't wrong in his actions because he gets away with it. Regardless of the situation, a person who doesn't accept responsibility for his or her actions and genuinely believes they aren't accountable is a fool. If they know they are accountable but ignore that fact then they are ignorant. Wether you get away with something or not doesn't negate the fact that it was the 'wrong' thing to do. And as I've said a few times before, just because something is wrong to do doesn't mean anything will be done about it. Morals are not universal law.
"Again, very hopeful. History and real life is littered with plentiful examples of people who get away with it just fine. Karma is not even REMOTELY true. If you are going to hit someone who can hit you back, that's just you being dumb. Hit someone who CAN'T hit back... and you do just fine. What about all the uncaught rapists? There are huge amounts of them, they get what they want and never any comeback. It is silly to think that negativity always breeds negativity. If it makes you happy and you know you can get away with it... why not do it?"
What do you want me to say? That rapists shouldn’t rape people because it's wrong? Well, that's true but it's not going to happen. If something is wrong, makes someone happy and they will get away with it, there is nothing to stop them but themselves. I don’t believe karma is a universal law. But in the case I mentioned earlier, it does seem to apply. As for attacking people who are weaker than you, if the whole world did that it would only be a matter of time before you were the victim of someone stronger than you. I have never said that life is fair and that bad people will always be punished. But negative actions often do breed negative actions. I may attack someone weaker than me, which angers them. Frustrated that they can't hit me back, they attack someone who is weaker than them. Or, two people have a fight and one decides to bring a knife. The next time they fight, the other brings a gun. Although this isn't always true, on many occasions it is.
"But religion DOES breed morals... that's not the end of the story, but it does, and furthermore it can give clear reasons why. Atheism finds that far harder to do."
I see what you mean. I may have used improper wording in my earlier post when i said "religion does not breed morals nor does atheism". I meant that neither religion nor atheism are mankind’s source of morals. I believe that while we can be taught morals by others we can also learn them ourselves in everyday life. As for Atheism finding it harder to teach morals, it really depends on the individual. 'Atheist' is a very general bracket that we put people into, simply, those who don't believe in the existence of a god. I can't really comment on the morals of all atheists in general. Although all the atheist's whom I know personally seem to be quite moral people.