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
See more
See less

The Human Animal...

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post
    Atheists have moral obligations too...
    To whom or what are you 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


    • #62
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

      To whom or what are you obligated to act morally?
      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".
      "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


      • #63
        Originally posted by Machinist View Post
        What's the point in even saying the term "morality" if there is no absolute standard by which you judge that moral (or immoral) action?
        If 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.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          To whom or what are you obligated to act morally?
          At a minimum, you are obligated to your society. Laws are passed to enforce some standards of morality, and violating those laws can get you fined or imprisoned, or even killed.

          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


          • #65
            Originally posted by Stoic View Post
            If 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.
            Stoic, 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!

            Comment


            • #66
              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".
              Right, when you can't answer the question, take refuge in semantic minutia.

              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


              • #67
                Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                At a minimum, you are obligated to your society.
                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


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                  Stoic, 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!
                  Moral rules aren't going to work unless most members of a society are willing to voluntarily follow them, and to help force any unwilling members to follow them. In fact, all else being equal, a set of moral rules is going to be better than another if a greater percentage of society is willing to follow them and help enforce them. That way, less effort is wasted in enforcing those rules.

                  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


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    Why?
                    Because your society thinks you have certain obligations, and is willing to punish you if you don't meet those obligations.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      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.
                      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.
                      P1) If , then I win.

                      P2)

                      C) I win.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        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.
                        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...

                        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


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                          Right, when you can't answer the question, take refuge in semantic minutia.
                          I am just giving you the etymological origin of the English word morality.

                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          And, of course, you completely failed to answer to whom or what we are obligated to act morally.
                          Possibly in its earliest [and still in its most basic] manifestation, to the social group/clan on whose survival the individual's life would have depended.

                          "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


                          • #73
                            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.
                            That's like saying, "I am obligated not to jump from a height of 10-feet because I could be injured." It's a nonsensical statement because the presence of potential negative consequences does not entail obligation.
                            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


                            • #74
                              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 Euthyphro dilemma perhaps intentionally misunderstands the nature of God. It asks, "Is something good because God approves of it, or does God approve of it because it is good?" The answer, of course, is neither. Rather, goodness is simply that which aligns with the character and nature of God. The reason lying is immoral is because it is contrary to God who is truth. Murder is immoral because it is contrary to God who is the exclusive author of life. God's commands are not arbitrary but are grounded in his own character and nature. Morality, at its most basic, simply says, "Do not do that which contradicts the character and nature of God," and God, as the supreme lawgiver, is a competent authority, the ultimate authority, who has the power to enforce his edicts. Therefore, we are obligated to obey God.

                              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

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                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...
                                There's no issue with DCT per se, it's just not moral realism.


                                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 whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                425 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X