To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[carpedm9587]

It seems to me that this entire discussion - start to end - is a clash of worldviews. For the Christian, their god is an objective reality, and absolute authority, and all of the moral world springs from this being - is universally true - and absolute in its nature. I'm not 100% sure about the application of this code, but I am fairly sure about the nature of it.

For the atheist - who believes no such being exists - it is necessarily true that morality arises from the function of mind, and is a subjective evaluation of "goodness." Atheists differ about the objectivity or subjectivity of morality. Some see it as objective and rooted in the basic evolutionary process - the so-called "laws of nature" if you will. Others (like me) see it as largely subjective, but grounded in objective realities (e.g., the nature of the universe, the so-called "laws of logic," etc.).

The theist, especially the Christian, has determined that anything moral statement that is not universal, absolute (and sometimes objective), is simply "unreal." It is temporary, fleeting, and provides no metric against which to universal measure the goodness of an action.

The atheist sees morality as an expression of the commonly held moral views of a community. If most/all of the members of a community see "random killing" as immoral, they will encode that in their laws/norms, and strive to isolate/eliminate those who violate that norm from their community. This happens within families, within specific communities, locally, regionally, nationally, and eeven globally, creating a complex set of overlapping moral norms.

Have I missed anything...?

[Cerpin Taxt]

Should we pat you on the back, or can you reach yourself?

What does that have to do with anything? Do you have difficulty staying focused?

[Cerpin Taxt]

Have I missed anything...?

If the existence of a particular moral system depends on a specific being to create it and dictate its content, it cannot be objective, by definition.

Also, we know humans and their subjective opinions exist. Rational theists and atheists will agree to that. Magical father figures of unlimited power and inscrutable motives are not agreed to exist by both parties.

[JimL]

So they can stay united to keep their power and position.

What do you mean by "so they can stay united?" Have you made a breakthrough in your understanding?

[seer]

What do you mean by "so they can stay united?" Have you made a breakthrough in your understanding?

Jim, the whole point that what the Nazis did and what the Hutus did did not violate their moral code, it was included in their moral code.

[seer]

Magical father figures of unlimited power and inscrutable motives are not agreed to exist by both parties.

So what?

[JimL]

Jim, the whole point that what the Nazis did and what the Hutus did did not violate their moral code, it was included in their moral code.

You're evading seer. The question was: what did you mean by "so they can stay united?"

[Cerpin Taxt]

So what?

So it stands in contrast to the moral basis typically suggested by atheists. All else being equal, it stands to reason one should prefer an explanation that doesn't depend on the disputed existence of an additional entity.

Have you heard of a thing called "Occam's razor"? It seems that you haven't.

[seer]

So it stands in contrast to the moral basis typically suggested by atheists. All else being equal, it stands to reason one should prefer an explanation that doesn't depend on the disputed existence of an additional entity.

I have no idea what atheists typically suggest. Do you mean Maoists, Stalinists, who? And if you are appealing to the majority then some form a deity must exist...

[Cerpin Taxt]

I have no idea what atheists typically suggest.

After more than 17K posts on this forum, I find that difficult to believe, but perhaps I have significantly overestimated your faculties for perception. I will re-calibrate my expectations.

Do you mean Maoists, Stalinists, who?

No, I said "atheists" because I meant atheists.

And if you are appealing to the majority then some form a deity must exist...

Do you think I'm "appealing to the majority"? If so, why?

[seer]

After more than 17K posts on this forum, I find that difficult to believe, but perhaps I have significantly overestimated your faculties for perception. I will re-calibrate my expectations.

Wow, so our antidotal experience of atheists who grew up largely in the Christian West, tells us what atheist typically think - morally?

No, I said "atheists" because I meant atheists.

But they were atheists.

Do you think I'm "appealing to the majority"? If so, why?

Magical father figures of unlimited power and inscrutable motives are not agreed to exist by both parties.

[Cerpin Taxt]

Wow, so our antidotal experience of atheists who grew up largely in the Christian West, tells us what atheist typically think - morally?

No. A cursory review of the arguments offered by atheists on this and other similar forums seems like a plentiful well from which to draw, don't you think? Do you think I have mischaracterized them? Have you forgotten the context in which my initial response was given, because charitably it seems you have.

It's "anecdotal," by the way.

But they were atheists.

So what if they were? The 9/11 terrorists were theists. Is that who we should imagine as a generalized representation of theists? Even with my recently lowered expectations, your resistance here seems deliberately obtuse.

[I]Magical father figures of unlimited power and inscrutable motives are not agreed to exist by both parties.

And? What does that have to do with any "appeal to the majority"?

[seer]

No. A cursory review of the arguments offered by atheists on this and other similar forums seems like a plentiful well from which to draw, don't you think? Do you think I have mischaracterized them? Have you forgotten the context in which my initial response was given, because charitably it seems you have.

It's "anecdotal," by the way.

OK, so you are only speaking of atheist on Tweb. There are atheists here like Starlight that support infanticide and other who don't.

So what if they were? The 9/11 terrorists were theists. Is that who we should imagine as a generalized representation of theists? Even with my recently lowered expectations, your resistance here seems deliberately obtuse.

The point is there is no moral norm in atheism or with atheists.

And? What does that have to do with any "appeal to the majority"?

Then why even bring up the "not agreed to exist by both parties" thing? What was your point...

[carpedm9587]

If the existence of a particular moral system depends on a specific being to create it and dictate its content, it cannot be objective, by definition.

Also, we know humans and their subjective opinions exist. Rational theists and atheists will agree to that. Magical father figures of unlimited power and inscrutable motives are not agreed to exist by both parties.

I cannot argue with any of that - as I have put forward here multiple times. Even Seer acknowledges that the moral system of his god must be subjective to that god (though he keep using the word objective in his posts...).

But from their point of view - which appears to be an authoritative moral framework, this god's moral system is binding on everyone - and is the objective standard against which all other moral standards are to be measured.

Even in a subjective moral framework - if one accepts the premises of an all-knowing being - the concept that their moral frame work is the most informed, and so the best choice to be replicated and followed, has some merit.

Of course, you then have to show that this being actually exists. Otherwise, you're just taking a human moral framework and attributing it to an imaginary being, which does NOT give it the kind of "best informed" nature that it is claimed to have.

[Cerpin Taxt]

OK, so you are only speaking of atheist on Tweb.

No, and I grow weary if your straw men. When you would like to respond to the things I did say, feel free.

There are atheists here like Starlight that support infanticide and other who don't.

The point is there is no moral norm in atheism or with atheists.

It has become clear that you are unable and/or unwilling to discuss this topic with a level of intellect and candor that merits any further contributions of my time.

Then why even bring up the "not agreed to exist by both parties" thing? What was your point...

My reasons were given. Charitably, again, I will suppose you're just playing dumb.