Yes, and in it's beginning stages, religion forced everyone to accept the SAME values. As our culture has progressed, we have kept many of these values, even if the religious basis for them is dead. Even if the values don't really exist, we all agree on them, because generations of us have been trained to. If we were to do away with the values we got from religion and just "start over", would all of us agree that killing is wrong? Probably not.

Of course, not all of us agree NOW, but I'd gamble that even fewer of us would decide that "killing is wrong" if we all made up our own values. What I'm saying is, religious values are usually better than nothing, and if everyone had to rely on their own mind for their values, I think a LOT of people would choose "nothing".

Cashiavellis

BAD SPAM!

This is utter nonsense.

You're confusing values with rules.  When I talk about values, I mean our will to survive and live our lives our way, without intrusion from others.  In a society, values such as these are applied in the establishment of rules, such as the rule that it's wrong to kill.

You can't make a system of morality based on what is wrong.  You have to start with what is RIGHT.  And what is right is that each individual has a will to survive, so the natural mechanism to employ would be one that protects that value.

As with making making rules without values, it simply doesn't make sense to just say something is wrong unless you know what is right.  To do otherwise would make a system of rules which are baseless.

By the way, we have forum signatures here.  I would appreciate it if you would cease from plugging your comic after each post.

Comic

All RIGHT, I've got a signature now (I just got it yesterday). I won't type something unique every time anymore, I'll just use a "signature". Sorry.

Now ANYWAY, each person's desire to survive may have been the SUBCONSCIOUS basis for our morality, but religion was the tool people used. Now, maybe you'd LIKE everybody to respect everyone else as a human being with rights, but I'm not sure that people WOULD agree without religion. I don't see what's "ridiculous" about that.

All ANIMALS have a wish to survive, but we don't respect THEIR rights. Why? Because our religion didn't tell us to. And before you say that humans are different because they have minds, what about the severely mentally handicapped? By severely, I mean those whose mental capacities are similar to an animals (yes, these people exist). Should their rights be the same as the animals' rights? Can we kill them whenever we want? All right, why not?

Our religious culture makes many of us respect other human beings more than we ordinarily would. Pure logic, as far as I can tell, is not yet ready to take its place.

Cashiavellis

All ANIMALS have a wish to survive, but we don't respect THEIR rights. Why? Because our religion didn't tell us to. And before you say that humans are different because they have minds, what about the severely mentally handicapped? By severely, I mean those whose mental capacities are similar to an animals (yes, these people exist). Should their rights be the same as the animals' rights? Can we kill them whenever we want? All right, why not?

I disagree with this! Religion tells us whatever they currently want to tell us. Animals have as much rights as us, people don't respect them simply because they are stupid. A person that mistreats a dog is not better than one that mistreats a person. Mind, schimnd, humans are different from animals only because they're an enterely different specie. on the other hand you have to count that you eat animals. So unless you intend to start practicing canibalism you must remember than though we are not better than them, we cannot treat them exactly the same way.

Our religious culture makes many of us respect other human beings more than we ordinarily would. Pure logic, as far as I can tell, is not yet ready to take its place.

the principle of respecting each other does not come out of religion, it comes out of our life in society. religion just took those principles as their own. it is the laws institued by humans (based in what we see it is better for us) that limit us, religion defends many of them, but that doesn't means they created them.

"Now ANYWAY, each person's desire to survive may have been the SUBCONSCIOUS basis for our morality, but religion was the tool people used. Now, maybe you'd LIKE everybody to respect everyone else as a human being with rights, but I'm not sure that people WOULD agree without religion. I don't see what's 'ridiculous' about that."

Because millions of people actually do agree on a moral system without religious influence.  Your insinuation that they wouldn't is ridiculous, due to its baselessness.
In fact, if you take a look at this article, you find that religion plays almost no factor in determining an individual's moral character, because, as it states, "in a country with the horrid statistic of finding itself with roughly 85% of the populace professing Christianity, 85% of the prison populace is Christian."
So you see, religion has no bearing on whether or not people agree on or follow moral practices and values.

As for the rest of your post, I'm going to stand behind Xocrates on what he said.  There's no need for me to parrot his fantastic rebuttal, especially about what he said about animals.  I couldn't have stated it any better, so I'm not going to try.

Comic

Excellent points. Bravo.

But do the animals that are dangerous to us, say a pack of diseased rats, have fewer "rights" than humans that are dangerous to us? If I kill one of those rats, is it equivalent to killing a person with leprosy, if they both endanger someone's health? If you spray your yard with pesticides, are you more or less of a murderer than if you, say, gas your own people, a la Saddam Hussein?

I'm sure this will come as a shock to Akira, but I actually care about this argument. I honestly believe that our "incorrect" Christian morals are one of the only things holding our society together, and that there is no such thing as a logically perfect set of morals that everyone can think about, agree on and agree to live by. Whether it's based on "values" or not. If I am proven wrong, I will have to redefine pretty much everything I think, feel and do. (And maybe apologize for all that "spam" I did when I wanted people to read my comics). And presumably the same is true of other people who care about these things, and may be reading this forum.

But now that we've agreed that animals and people have the same rights, we're getting into some pretty tricky territory here. If anyone has some perfect, Ayn Randian argument that will prove once and for all what everyone, everywhere should do or not do, now is the time to post it.

Cash, do you have an objective (i.e., thesis) to what you're saying, or are you just kind of arguing for the sake of... you know... arguing?

I agree with Akira.  You just totally lost me.

Comic

Your point, if I am correct, is that our morality comes from values that we choose. My point is that it comes from habit and culture. That is my thesis.

I think your definition of values are a little different than mine.  You seem to be using values in a connotation that means "opinion".  My definition of value is a necessity for survival.  If we keep going this route, we're just going to keep equivocating and we'll never going to get anywhere that way.

I am not talking about opinions (i.e., "I think killing is wrong").  I am talking about necessities.  Morals value is value that is based on needs; not wants or opinions.

For example, we don't "choose" the value to survive.  It's in our best interest, though, to construct a system by which we can increase our ability to survive.

Think of society as a pact of protection.  Safety in numbers.  By agreeing to live peacefully and respecting each others rights, we increase our own odds of survival.

That's essentially the foundation for morality.

Comic

You're right. We were using different definitions of value. I'll use yours.

Let's say someone has nothing to offer society. He will die unless he steals. If a value is a "necessity of survival", then his value is to steal food and shelter. Possibly killing anyone who gets in his way. Otherwise, he will starve, and not survive. So his "value" is just as correct as yours or mine, since it's based on his need to survive.

You're using a very extreme circumstance.  If things were that bad for the guy, then I could see force being justified, but I could hardly imagine a circumstance under which he'd be justified to kill another person for food.  It would have to be a downright last resort to justify that.

You're also forgetting that I mentioned society.  Society does play a role in this.  It's not just the survival of one.  It's the community acting as a whole to increase the odds of survival for all.  And we can see that we have things such as homeless shelters and charities which provide food for the needy.

A society, by its very definition, is a community of people who mutually look out for each other.  The policeman keeps you out of danger, the fireman rescues you in emergencies, the utilities workmen keep your home warm and secure, the grocer provides you with food, and your dollars go to support these people for their efforts so that they can have the same level of security as well.

It's not just everyone out for themselves.  It's everyone looking out for each other, because that is what increases survival.

Comic

This as reached an interesting point!

The truth is that although most values exist so society can live, most individuals will have personal values to ensure their own survival. If these two sets collide society usually overtakes the individual by force in a mechanism of self preservation.

However this can be seen in the point of view that from the moment on the individual places his own values above those of the society he is inserted he basically stops being part of it. The only way for him not to be "expelled" would be to accept to sacrifice itself for the good of society.