Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Are elephants people?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    If might does not define right then what does?
    Everyone has to decide for himself (or accept the opinions of others, such as parents, society, etc.) what is right, which includes what to do when someone else does something that isn't right.

    It's not really that much different than coming to agreement on which religious text to refer to and how to interpret it.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

      Everyone has to decide for himself (or accept the opinions of others, such as parents, society, etc.) what is right, which includes what to do when someone else does something that isn't right.

      It's not really that much different than coming to agreement on which religious text to refer to and how to interpret it.
      So in a society it is basically the majority that decides what is right. Might defining right...
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

        I suspect you and I are using different definitions of either "permissible" or "obligation" or both.

        I find this happens fairly often when I'm in a discussion with someone who has a different worldview than I do.
        I am using the common dictionary definitions of those words. Your problem is trying to reconcile your intutive sense that moral obligation must exist with a worldview in which it cannot exist. The cognitive dissonace you are expressing is only to be expected.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post

          So in a society it is basically the majority that decides what is right. Might defining right...
          So you've forgotten this post already?

          I've heard of arguing in circles, but this is an awfully tight circle.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

            I am using the common dictionary definitions of those words. Your problem is trying to reconcile your intutive sense that moral obligation must exist with a worldview in which it cannot exist. The cognitive dissonace you are expressing is only to be expected.
            If something is against the law, would you say that it is "permissible"?

            Are you "obligated" to obey the law?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

              If something is against the law, would you say that it is "permissible"?

              Are you "obligated" to obey the law?
              You are conflating what is legal with what is moral. The legality of an act has no bearing on its moral permissibiilty.

              As for what obligation we might have to obey the law, that gets us back to the infinite regress I mentioned earlier.

              Why ought I obey the law?
              Because your local government said to.
              Why ought I obey my local government?
              Because your city government said to.
              Why ought I obey my city government?
              Because your county governemnt said to.
              Why ought I obey my county government?
              Because your state government said to.
              Why ought I obey my state government?
              ...and on down the rabbit hole it goes.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                You are conflating what is legal with what is moral. The legality of an act has no bearing on its moral permissibiilty.

                As for what obligation we might have to obey the law, that gets us back to the infinite regress I mentioned earlier.

                Why ought I obey the law?
                Because your local government said to.
                Why ought I obey my local government?
                Because your city government said to.
                Why ought I obey my city government?
                Because your county governemnt said to.
                Why ought I obey my county government?
                Because your state government said to.
                Why ought I obey my state government?
                ...and on down the rabbit hole it goes.
                So when you say "permissible" or "obligated", you mean "morally permissible" and "morally obligated".

                In that case, I would say that if morality is a matter of opinion (as I believe), then it is a matter of opinion as to whether "everything is permissible" without an absolute moral lawgiver.

                And my own opinion would be, "No it isn't."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                  So when you say "permissible" or "obligated", you mean "morally permissible" and "morally obligated".

                  In that case, I would say that if morality is a matter of opinion (as I believe), then it is a matter of opinion as to whether "everything is permissible" without an absolute moral lawgiver.

                  And my own opinion would be, "No it isn't."
                  Since we're talking about moral obligation, why would I have meant anything else?

                  And, sure, if atheism is true, you are free to decide for yourself what is and isn't permissible, but you have no obligation to prefer one behavior over another. For that matter, you're not even obligated to have a consistent ethic but can pick and choose whatever is most advantageous to you in the moment. But, of course, you instinctively reject this. It seems so intuitive that you ought to behave a certain way despite the fact that this directly contradicts your worldview. I genuinely hope that someday you figure out why.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    You say you disagree with Craig and yet affirm everything he has said.
                    No, I denied everything he said pretty much from start to finish. I think he is wrong on pretty much every single part of it.

                    Even if we allowed objective morality as a brute fact of nature, like the laws of physics, the atheist must necessarily reject the concept of moral duty, as you have done.
                    No, if moral duty existed as a brute fact of nature like the laws of physics, then atheists would believe them in the same sort of way they believe the laws of physics.

                    But in so doing, he reduces the concept of morality to nothing more than individual preference that is dicated solely by what is most advantageous to the individual at any given moment.
                    No. And in fact almost the opposite. Most atheists would regard 'selflessness' as pretty close to identical to 'morality'. Obviously selflessness is not necessarily advantageous to the individual - that would be its opposite: Selfishness.

                    If you want to talk to someone who bases their morality on what is advantageous to the individual, talk to seer. I would describe him as having a morality of maximum selfishness.

                    This, however, creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of the atheist, because despite his best intellectual efforts, he instinctively recognizes that moral duty does, in fact, exist, yet he can't account for this from within an atheist framework.
                    Given I flatly denied in the previous post that the concept of moral duty exists, it's a bit weird you'd claim that atheists recognize moral duty exists.

                    As for your claim that the Bible does not concern itself with the concept of moral duty, what nonsense.
                    The word 'duty' only occurs about 30 times (translation dependent) in the bible. It's not interested in the topic.

                    There would be no point in God giving us the Ten Commandments if we had no obligation to obey them.
                    With normal laws passed by governments, I wouldn't say we had a duty to obey them. We can obey them, or not. And there are consequences of that choice. Some people like to construct a philosophical paradigm where we are all voluntary members of a social contract and therefore have a duty as citizens to obey the laws of the state, but that is a somewhat arbitrary philosophical construct I am not particularly sold on. The existence of the law itself doesn't really imply the existence of a corresponding duty unless some sort of philosophical construct is added. In the same way, I don't necessarily think that God giving a law implies a duty unless you add in some philosophical or theological constructs of your own.

                    Nothing in the Bible is presented as merely a suggestion.
                    Actually much of the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are presented as suggestions, as well as some passages in Paul's letters to churches. Maybe you should try reading the bible?
                    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      Since we're talking about moral obligation, why would I have meant anything else?
                      Because there are other types of permissibility and obligation.

                      And, sure, if atheism is true, you are free to decide for yourself what is and isn't permissible, but you have no obligation to prefer one behavior over another.
                      You are also free to decide whether you have such an obligation (and whether anyone else does).

                      For that matter, you're not even obligated to have a consistent ethic but can pick and choose whatever is most advantageous to you in the moment.
                      But there are reasons to stick with a consistent ethic. Just as an example, one reason for behaving morally is so that others will have a high opinion of you. If you don't have a consistent ethic, they won't be able to predict what you will do in any given situation. It's hard to have a high opinion of someone like that.

                      But, of course, you instinctively reject this. It seems so intuitive that you ought to behave a certain way despite the fact that this directly contradicts your worldview. I genuinely hope that someday you figure out why.
                      It doesn't contradict my worldview that some types of behavior should be preferred over others.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        No, I denied everything he said pretty much from start to finish. I think he is wrong on pretty much every single part of it.

                        No, if moral duty existed as a brute fact of nature like the laws of physics, then atheists would believe them in the same sort of way they believe the laws of physics.

                        No. And in fact almost the opposite. Most atheists would regard 'selflessness' as pretty close to identical to 'morality'. Obviously selflessness is not necessarily advantageous to the individual - that would be its opposite: Selfishness.

                        If you want to talk to someone who bases their morality on what is advantageous to the individual, talk to seer. I would describe him as having a morality of maximum selfishness.

                        Given I flatly denied in the previous post that the concept of moral duty exists, it's a bit weird you'd claim that atheists recognize moral duty exists.

                        The word 'duty' only occurs about 30 times (translation dependent) in the bible. It's not interested in the topic.

                        With normal laws passed by governments, I wouldn't say we had a duty to obey them. We can obey them, or not. And there are consequences of that choice. Some people like to construct a philosophical paradigm where we are all voluntary members of a social contract and therefore have a duty as citizens to obey the laws of the state, but that is a somewhat arbitrary philosophical construct I am not particularly sold on. The existence of the law itself doesn't really imply the existence of a corresponding duty unless some sort of philosophical construct is added. In the same way, I don't necessarily think that God giving a law implies a duty unless you add in some philosophical or theological constructs of your own.

                        Actually much of the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are presented as suggestions, as well as some passages in Paul's letters to churches. Maybe you should try reading the bible?
                        You do not seem to understand the difference between morality and moral duty. If you did, you'd understand why your argument here falls flat. These concepts were explained earlier in the thread.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                          Because there are other types of permissibility and obligation.


                          You are also free to decide whether you have such an obligation (and whether anyone else does).


                          But there are reasons to stick with a consistent ethic. Just as an example, one reason for behaving morally is so that others will have a high opinion of you. If you don't have a consistent ethic, they won't be able to predict what you will do in any given situation. It's hard to have a high opinion of someone like that.


                          It doesn't contradict my worldview that some types of behavior should be preferred over others.
                          You might have your reasons for behaving one way as opposed to another, but you do not have an obligation to behave one way as opposed to another. You think you do because it seems so obvious to us, but your worldview can not account for it.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                            You might have your reasons for behaving one way as opposed to another, but you do not have an obligation to behave one way as opposed to another. You think you do because it seems so obvious to us, but your worldview can not account for it.
                            If moral obligation is a matter of opinion, and your opinion is that you have a moral obligation, then you have a moral obligation.

                            I'm not sure I can make it any more clear than that.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              You do not seem to understand the difference between morality and moral duty. If you did, you'd understand why your argument here falls flat. These concepts were explained earlier in the thread.
                              You mean when you quoted Craig's absurd argument and I rejected it?
                              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                                If moral obligation is a matter of opinion, and your opinion is that you have a moral obligation, then you have a moral obligation.

                                I'm not sure I can make it any more clear than that.
                                If it's merely an "opinion", then it is subjective, which brings us back to...

                                ...you are free to decide for yourself what is and isn't permissible, but you have no obligation to prefer one behavior over another. For that matter, you're not even obligated to have a consistent ethic but can pick and choose whatever is most advantageous to you in the moment.

                                This is not only consistent with atheism, but it is the only conclusion available for the atheist. The fact that you instinctively reject it as incorrect speaks volumes.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                291 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X