To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[seer]

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...).

Let me clear that up Carp, God's moral laws is subjective Him, but objective to humankind. But more importantly universal and authoritative.

[seer]

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

Jim, I have no idea what you are asking. They share certain ideals and goals that bind them for a greater purpose - like killing their neighbors or gassing Jews to steal their wealth.

[seer]

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

You were speaking of what atheists "typically" believe to be moral. You did not limit that statement to the atheists on TWeb or even on line. Hence my question about Maoists and Stalinists. So you backed off that claim and tried to limit it after I called you on it. Bad form old man...

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.

No answer I see... So what is the moral norm for atheism?

[Cerpin Taxt]

)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.

They're not really speaking about morality, but rather legality. The legal framework says "you owe duties x, y, z... and a breach of those duties earns a certain punishment." A moral framework says "you owe duties x, y, z... because I value a community/society/reality where those duties are fulfilled."

"Might" does not make "right," as it were, although the Christians are wont to believe it.

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.

No. One person having all the pieces to the puzzle doesn't make that person the sole decider on whether the puzzle's image is pleasing or frightening. Everyone can still decide that for themselves.

[Tassman]

Let me clear that up Carp, God's moral laws is subjective Him, but objective to humankind. But more importantly universal and authoritative.

So you believe; I believe you are wrong. Your belief is not grounded in any substantive evidence which supports the existence of this god of whom you speak.

[seer]

"Might" does not make "right," as it were, although the Christians are wont to believe it.

If might does not define right, then what does - weakness?

No. One person having all the pieces to the puzzle doesn't make that person the sole decider on whether the puzzle's image is pleasing or frightening.

Except that Being would know how every moral choice played out in the long run, something we can not know.

Everyone can still decide that for themselves.

And that is why we have hell, to remove such people from civil society.

[JimL]

If might does not define right, then what does - weakness?

What would your own answer to that question be seer, and why? Just because?

Except that Being would know how every moral choice played out in the long run, something we can not know.

So, are you saying morality is about consequences?

And that is why we have hell, to remove such people from civil society.

Well, for one thing seer, there is no such thing as hell. Second, no human being is perfect, not even you.

[seer]

What would your own answer to that question be seer, and why? Just because?

You know my answer Jim, God defines right, His moral character is the standard.

So, are you saying morality is about consequences?

Look at it this way. You save a 17 year old from drowning - that night he gets drunk and celebrates - he plows his car into a family of 5 killing them. Was your act of saving him good or bad? The point is you could never know the long term consequences of any act, where an all knowing God could. We are in the dark when it comes to moral choices, He is not.

Well, for one thing seer, there is no such thing as hell. Second, no human being is perfect, not even you.

Well you hope there isn't a hell, and perfection is not necessary to avoid judgement. If it was no man could be saved.

[JimL]

You know my answer Jim, God defines right, His moral character is the standard.

Yes I know. So your answer is that might defines right, correct? God being the might of course.

Look at it this way. You save a 17 year old from drowning - that night he gets drunk and celebrates - he plows his car into a family of 5 killing them. Was your act of saving him good or bad? The point is you could never know the long term consequences of any act, where an all knowing God could. We are in the dark when it comes to moral choices, He is not.

I don't think that has anything to do with it seer. The one act doesn't necessarily lead to, or cause the other, unless you believe in determinism, which you don't. You're reaching!

Well you hope there isn't a hell, and perfection is not necessary to avoid judgement. If it was no man could be saved.

Right, so the idea that hell is a place where the immoral are sent is ridiculous, since we all fit that description from time to time.

[seer]

Yes I know. So your answer is that might defines right, correct? God being the might of course.

No quite, God's immutable moral character defines right, He just has the power to enforce it universally.

I don't think that has anything to do with it seer. The one act doesn't necessarily lead to, or cause the other, unless you believe in determinism, which you don't. You're reaching!

Jim you avoided the point. It was a hypothetical. So was your saving of the 17 year old that goes on that night to kill a family of 5 a good act or a bad act? And that is the point, only an all knowing Being can know the long term consequences of any act. We are completely in the dark.

Right, so the idea that hell is a place where the immoral are sent is ridiculous, since we all fit that description from time to time.

No, those in hell are those who refuse to be perfected, to love God, who does the perfecting, it doesn't mean that perfection comes in this life.

[Cerpin Taxt]

If might does not define right, then what does - weakness?

Personal values, beliefs and expectations, of course.

Except that Being would know how every moral choice played out in the long run, something we can not know.

That doesn't change anything. My feelings about things remain equally valid and inviolate.

And that is why we have hell, to remove such people from civil society.

That really has nothing to do with my statement. I can see it was a mistake to have taken your remarks with any degree of seriousness before.

[seer]

Personal values, beliefs and expectations, of course.

Right, you have your personal values, the Hutu his, the Nazi his, the Communist his, and so on...

That doesn't change anything. My feelings about things remain equally valid and inviolate.

How are they valid if you can't know the long term consequences of any act? You are making moral decisions in ignorance.

That really has nothing to do with my statement. I can see it was a mistake to have taken your remarks with any degree of seriousness before.

That doesn't change anything. My feelings about this remain equally valid and inviolate....

[Cerpin Taxt]

Right, you have your personal values, the Hutu his, the Nazi his, the Communist his, and so on...

And? Did you have a point?

How are they valid if you can't know the long term consequences of any act? You are making moral decisions in ignorance.

Why should that make them invalid? Have you ever thought about trying to formulate a coherent argument? It doesn't appear that you have.

That doesn't change anything. My feelings about this remain equally valid and inviolate....

Why do you bother to respond when you clearly don't have a point to make?

[seer]

And? Did you have a point?

It is obvious... If there are no universal moral truths then no ethical opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite.

Why should that make them invalid? Have you ever thought about trying to formulate a coherent argument? It doesn't appear that you have.

So making moral decisions based on ignorance is valid?

Why do you bother to respond when you clearly don't have a point to make?

OK, so when you say that your feelings are valid and inviolate, you weren't making a point?

[Cerpin Taxt]

It is obvious... If there are no universal moral truths then no ethical opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite.

Only an idiot would think that.

To you, the correct ethical opinions are those that agree with your own ethical opinions, as informed by your personal values, beliefs and expectations.

So making moral decisions based on ignorance is valid?

Of course. Why wouldn't it be?

OK, so when you say that your feelings are valid and inviolate, you weren't making a point?

I'm still waiting for you to make yours. I'm guessing I shouldn't hold my breath.