The flaws of NT-based morality

[Mountain Man]

[Tassman]

My answer is that as far as moral obligation is concerned, it doesn't matter a hill of beans what I prefer.

Of course it matters what you prefer. What you prefer is what you are more likely to support and facilitate.

I would prefer a society where people as ignorant and uninformed as you are denied voting rights,

This from a Trump voter...if only the ignorant and uninformed can be denied voting rights.

but that doesn't mean it ought to be done.

What do you mean by "ought"?

It's clear from your questions and the general thrust of your argument that you really don't understand the issues involved. I suggest you start with figuring out what "ought" means.

[Mountain Man]

What do you mean by "ought"?

There's a reason I keep telling you guys to study that word and how it relates to the philosophy of morality. Until you understand it, my arguments are going to keep going over your heads. And, no, I'm not going to spoon-feed you. Put on your big-boy pants and do your own homework.

[Tassman]

There's a reason I keep telling you guys to study that word and how it relates to the philosophy of morality.

Can't answer, huh?

Until you understand it, my arguments are going to keep going over your heads. And, no, I'm not going to spoon-feed you. Put on your big-boy pants and do your own homework.

What arguments? All we get are evasions.

[Mountain Man]

What arguments? All we get are evasions.

They only seen like evasions to you because you're ignorant. "Ought" has a well-defined meaning in moral philosophy, but until you understand that, you will be incapable of understanding the arguments I've presented. But you know what? Your ignorance is not my problem.

[Charles]

It's fascinating how much Christians seem to love Nietzsche's ideas. I've never seen any atheist show any interest in Nietzsche or nihilism [I've never read Nietzsche and don't care 2 figs about him and/or nihilism, and I managed to do a philosophy degree at a secular university including courses in philosophy of religion without anyone ever mentioning Nietzsche, what I know about Nietzsche I know from seeing Christians reference him obsessively when they try to make philosophical arguments with regard to what they think atheists ought to believe]. But Christians seem to really love the idea of nihilism. The Christian pop-psychology of atheists is weird... there's a lot of projection of their own nihilism that simply isn't present in any atheists I've ever met.

Craig's ramblings strike me as relatively nonsensical: A long string of statements on his part that I don't agree with and I don't think many atheists would agree with. He doesn't seem to have paid much attention to how atheists tend to think about morality, and has just projected his own nihilism onto us.

Since you point to the fact that you have not read much about or by Nietzsche allow me to recommend On the Genealogy of Morals. He is definitely worth reading and I feel quite certain that you will find him extremely interesting, funny and absurd at the same time. He is one of very few from whom you can learn a lot without agreeing too much. He is very good at pointing to the weak and - according to him - contradictory founding of Christian ethics.

One of his funny points is that the love in the Christian world view is intended for one purpose only, namely to cover up for a much greater hate which allows people to live with the ideas of Hell to name just one absurdity.

[Charles]

[...]. According to the ever reliable Wikipedia (ha!), "Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings."

And this leaves us exactly where with regard to God as a foundation of ethics? Torturing babies is not wrong in and of itself (according to some Christians view). Neither is it wrong because God finds it wrong? The reason is that it is against God's nature, or? And if it was not against God's nature it would have been right?

The main weaknes still remains: If torturing babies in and of itself is not wrong then whatever God's thoughts, will or nature may establish seems to bear no absolute moral meaning but seems more like some accidental "attribute" to a "worthless" reality.

[Charles]

So what you're saying is, "One ought to do what is in the best interests of human beings and human society as a whole." What is your basis for this?

It seems your guiding principle is the golden rule, but what if someone is able to avoid the consequences of his immoral behavior, or simply doesn't care about the consequences? Why should he do what it's in the best interests of others?

And this is where I assume that you would say that even though you can be forgiven, you should still do what is right or at least try to to do even if there is actually no consequences once you are forgiven. That is, I guess, basically, your own estimation of how one should behave is that you should do what is right regardless of the consequences. Would you start killing or stealing if you lost your faith in God? Do you start to consider whether Holocaust was morally insignificant when you start to doubt whether God exists (I guess you have such doubts once in a while)?

[Charles]

You refer to the bible's moral code to justify your belief that evolution determines morality? nice.

It is not specifically biblical and existed some centuries before Christ.

[Charles]

Let me know if you spot the logical fallacy. You might also want to look up the meaning of the word "ought" before you make another silly error. And I don't mean just stop at the dictionary but really look into how the word is used by philosophers when discussing the philosophy of ethics and morality.

The problem, Mr. Mountain Man, is that the word is not used in the same way by all philosophers throughout history, nor does it bear the same implications.

[Mountain Man]

And this leaves us exactly where with regard to God as a foundation of ethics? Torturing babies is not wrong in and of itself (according to some Christians view). Neither is it wrong because God finds it wrong? The reason is that it is against God's nature, or? And if it was not against God's nature it would have been right?

The main weaknes still remains: If torturing babies in and of itself is not wrong then whatever God's thoughts, will or nature may establish seems to bear no absolute moral meaning but seems more like some accidental "attribute" to a "worthless" reality.

If there are no moral absolutes and/or there is no moral obligation, then how can something be wrong "in and of itself"? Is it wrong "in and of itself" for a lion to kill male cubs in order to maintain its dominance in the pride? Is it wrong "in and of itself" to tell a lie in order to achieve a desired result? Is it wrong "in and of itself" to serve vanilla ice cream when you know your guest prefers chocolate? How do you know?

And this is where I assume that you would say that even though you can be forgiven, you should still do what is right or at least try to to do even if there is actually no consequences once you are forgiven. That is, I guess, basically, your own estimation of how one should behave is that you should do what is right regardless of the consequences. Would you start killing or stealing if you lost your faith in God? Do you start to consider whether Holocaust was morally insignificant when you start to doubt whether God exists (I guess you have such doubts once in a while)?

You're essentially asking me why I, as a Christian, do not live my life according to the amoral worldview of atheism. I would have thought the answer was obvious.

And you're still asking me what I would prefer. I already answered: I would prefer to live in a civil society, but so what? If atheism is true then there is no rational argument that says I ought/am morally obligated/have a categorical imperative to prefer civility over incivility. To be frank, if I was ever convinced that God didn't exist then I probably wouldn't become a serial killer or anything like that, but it would certainly make it easier to commit the "smaller" sins I sometimes struggle with. And why shouldn't it if there are no immediate, long-term, or eternal consequences for my actions? For that matter, if atheism is true then why shouldn't someone become a serial killer if they were so inclined? What "ought not" is there to prevent it?

The problem, Mr. Mountain Man, is that the word is not used in the same way by all philosophers throughout history, nor does it bear the same implications.

Wrong. The word is actually very well understood by philosophers. Immanuel Kant wrote extensively on the subject of "ought"

[Charles]

Wrong. The word is actually very well understood by philosophers. Immanuel Kant wrote extensively on the subject of "ought"

No matter if Kant had written twice as much it would have done nothing to change the fact that the word is not used with exactly the same meaning or implications throughout the history of philosophy. If you find Kant's explanation to be particularily good, then it is absolutely fair, but it would have helped if you had pointed to it at an earlier stage.

[Charles]

If there are no moral absolutes and/or there is no moral obligation, then how can something be wrong "in and of itself"? Is it wrong "in and of itself" for a lion to kill male cubs in order to maintain its dominance in the pride? Is it wrong "in and of itself" to tell a lie in order to achieve a desired result? Is it wrong "in and of itself" to serve vanilla ice cream when you know your guest prefers chocolate? How do you know?

So the pain that tortured babies are feeling is not the reason it is wrong and does nothing to constitute it being wrong? And the fact that the jews suffered and died was not wrong in and of itself but only wrong because God found it to be wrong? We are still back at Leibniz's point. If there are no objectives to point to, then whatever is established has this strange coincidental character. And I have seen no reason at all to assume that no moral absolutes exist, so those ideas about the Holocaust being morally insignificant are very hard to even find meaningful.

You're essentially asking me why I, as a Christian, do not live my life according to the amoral worldview of atheism. I would have thought the answer was obvious.

And you're still asking me what I would prefer. I already answered: I would prefer to live in a civil society, but so what? If atheism is true then there is no rational argument that says I ought/am morally obligated/have a categorical imperative to prefer civility over incivility. To be frank, if I was ever convinced that God didn't exist then I probably wouldn't become a serial killer or anything like that, but it would certainly make it easier to commit the "smaller" sins I sometimes struggle with. And why shouldn't it if there are no immediate, long-term, or eternal consequences for my actions? For that matter, if atheism is true then why shouldn't someone become a serial killer if they were so inclined? What "ought not" is there to prevent it?

But you just said you probably would not become a serial killer so it would seem you are actually capable of finding an "ought" though you are reluctant to tell what it is or perhaps do not know what words to put on it? It seems this argument is an appeal to emotions to some extent. It seems you want to make the case that if we do not believe in God we have to believe that the Holocaust is morally insignificant (wrong by the way). Then, since we cannot really believe in this, then we have to believe in God (though as Leibniz pointed out this does nothing to actually help the problem).

[Mountain Man]

No matter if Kant had written twice as much it would have done nothing to change the fact that the word is not used with exactly the same meaning or implications throughout the history of philosophy. If you find Kant's explanation to be particularily good, then it is absolutely fair, but it would have helped if you had pointed to it at an earlier stage.

Since I've been using "ought" interchangeably with "morale obligation", that should have been more than enough for any reasonable person willing to do his due diligence to understand my arguments. Or if someone had bothered to simply follow the link I posted earlier and actually read it, they would have gotten it. I don't post links as an idle exercise.

Source: Can We Be Good Without God?

A duty is something that is owed . . . . But something can be owed only to some person or persons. There can be no such thing as duty in isolation . . . . The idea of political or legal obligation is clear enough . . . . Similarly, the idea of an obligation higher than this, and referred to as moral obligation, is clear enough, provided reference to some lawmaker higher . . . . than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations can . . . be understood as those that are imposed by God. This does give a clear sense to the claim that our moral obligations are more binding upon us than our political obligations . . . . But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of a moral obligation . . . still make sense? . . . . the concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain, but their meaning is gone.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-w...od-without-god

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

So the pain that tortured babies are feeling is not the reason it is wrong and does nothing to constitute it being wrong? And the fact that the jews suffered and died was not wrong in and of itself but only wrong because God found it to be wrong? We are still back at Leibniz's point. If there are no objectives to point to, then whatever is established has this strange coincidental character. And I have seen no reason at all to assume that no moral absolutes exist, so those ideas about the Holocaust being morally insignificant are very hard to even find meaningful.

So you are you are still pointing to objective moral absolutes that you can not demonstrate exist?