Originally posted by Stoic
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The Human Animal...
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
To whom or what are you obligated to act morally?"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Machinist View PostWhat's the point in even saying the term "morality" if there is no absolute standard by which you judge that moral (or immoral) action?
This is true whether or not there is an absolute standard.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostTo whom or what are you obligated to act morally?
But most people exceed the minimum standards, because they have internalized the moral rules of their society. Such a person wants to be a good person, and is obligated to him or herself.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View PostIf the vast majority of members of a society agree with the moral rules of that society, and follow them, then (assuming those rules were well chosen) the vast majority of members of that society are better off than they would be without those moral rules. They will be able to live their lives with less fear of someone killing them, raping them, taking what is rightfully theirs, etc. These moral rules allow an organized society to exist, so the standard of living can be immensely greater than it would be in the state of nature.
This is true whether or not there is an absolute standard.
Thank you!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
Given that the English word morality is derived from the Latin mores [customs, manners] we might assume [although we cannot know] that in its earliest manifestations among our ancient forebears what constituted morality may have been behaviours that primarily ensured the survival of the group. Some of those behaviours may, of course, not have been entirely what we today in the West would consider "moral".
And, of course, you completely failed to answer to whom or what we are obligated to act morally.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 Machinist View PostStoic, Thank you for answering my question. I'm going to take an educated guess here and say there will be issue taken with what I have emphasized above from your response. Would you mind elaborating on what determines "well chosen"?
Thank you!
How do you choose rules so that most people will be willing to agree to them? Every moral rule takes away some freedom from each member of society, because it limits what they are allowed to do. The best way to get someone to agree to that is to show them that they gain more by everyone following the rule than they lose by having to follow it themselves. The rule should also be enforceable, or they will reason that they can benefit by not following the rule and still gain the benefit of everyone else following the rule (or they will reason that no one will follow the rule, and they have no good reason to give up that particular freedom). The rule should also not unfairly disadvantage some subset of society, or that subset (and anyone who empathizes with them) will object, and the entire set of moral rules will be in jeopardy.
That's what I can think of off the top of my head. I've probably missed some possible meta rules.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
You'll have to explain that one, because the theist position, generally speaking, is that there is a moral lawgiver in the form of a deity to whom all men are obligated to act morally. Atheism, on the other hand, can not account for a moral lawgiver; therefore, it can not account for moral obligation.
As it presents itself, theism is mostly just divine command theory. The Euthyphro dilemma does a lot of work in showing the fundamental tension with theistic morality. The Nature route just kicks the can down the road to nature of God's Nature. Either the good has to be produced sui generis or God's Nature is defined to be good without being good itself. Divine simplicity would run into the naturalistic fallacy as the good = power = knowledge = existence.
A further problem with theistic morality is God is more a conveyor of moral knowledge as God has better epistemic access to moral facts rather than the source of moral facts.
An atheist could conceivable go the moral Platonist route, but that has trouble as well.
Given that morality is necessarily about inter-individual relations (and intra-individual for humans given cognitive capacities), a well-being (which would include social well-being and individual well-being) approach is the easiest route. Even the well-being route has its problems for sure, but of the approaches, it has least complexity.P1) If , then I win.
P2)
C) I win.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
As it presents itself, theism is mostly just divine command theory. The Euthyphro dilemma does a lot of work in showing the fundamental tension with theistic morality. The Nature route just kicks the can down the road to nature of God's Nature. Either the good has to be produced sui generis or God's Nature is defined to be good without being good itself. Divine simplicity would run into the naturalistic fallacy as the good = power = knowledge = existence.
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 Mountain Man View Post
Right, when you can't answer the question, take refuge in semantic minutia.
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAnd, of course, you completely failed to answer to whom or what we are obligated to act morally.
"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
Because your society thinks you have certain obligations, and is willing to punish you if you don't meet those obligations.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 Diogenes View Post
God giving moral laws doesn't entail moral realism. Under moral realism, moral obligation would be ostensibly no different than the strong nuclear force (though not necessarily natural in origin).
As it presents itself, theism is mostly just divine command theory. The Euthyphro dilemma does a lot of work in showing the fundamental tension with theistic morality. The Nature route just kicks the can down the road to nature of God's Nature. Either the good has to be produced sui generis or God's Nature is defined to be good without being good itself. Divine simplicity would run into the naturalistic fallacy as the good = power = knowledge = existence.
A further problem with theistic morality is God is more a conveyor of moral knowledge as God has better epistemic access to moral facts rather than the source of moral facts.
An atheist could conceivable go the moral Platonist route, but that has trouble as well.
Given that morality is necessarily about inter-individual relations (and intra-individual for humans given cognitive capacities), a well-being (which would include social well-being and individual well-being) approach is the easiest route. Even the well-being route has its problems for sure, but of the approaches, it has least complexity.
The problem with trying to ground moral obligation in the natural world is that there is no ultimate authority. The atheist will often appeal to consequentialism, for instance, "You are obligated to obey the laws of society because society can punish you if you don't," but in that case, figuring out how to mitigate or avoid the consequences is just as valid a conclusion as conforming to the law. There is nothing to say, "One ought not avoid the consequences imposed by society," and in fact, countless people throughout history have lived long, happy, and prosperous lives while flouting social conformity. We also know that what secular society considers good and proper can and does change on a whim, and that what is considered unacceptable today could be tolerated and even embraced tomorrow. Who is to say, for instance, that pedophiles are really doing anything immoral? Perhaps they're just ahead of the curve and are simply waiting for the rest of society to catch up.Last edited by Mountain Man; 04-01-2021, 06:43 AM.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
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
I don't see a problem with divine command theory or which horn of the dilemma the Christian view of God would be impaled on...
DCT would accept the horn that God's commands are good because God commands them.P1) If , then I win.
P2)
C) I win.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
|
38 responses
135 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Today, 01:43 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
425 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
303 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM |
Comment