To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[demi-conservative]

One week later, let's do summary!

Guacamole asked how non-theists can do anchoring of ethics in reason. Non-theists all give no answer to question, instead they say what principles they follow. Telling!!...that they can't do grounding.

Let's look at related point. All people here who know apologetics know atheists get panties in twist that normal people think atheists are immoral/amoral. "But we can do moral stuff!!! ", they say!


Now normal people not good at being clear in philosophical way, but what they see and mean is just same thing: ethics of atheists has zero grounding. So why trust morality of theirs???

[JimL]

This gon' be good.

So nontheist JimL, how do you answer challenge of greatgreatgreatgrandpappy of yours, Hume?

Hume was a moral naturalist you dummy, so you misunderstand the intent of his argument.

[Doug Shaver]

Guacamole asked how non-theists can do anchoring of ethics in reason. Non-theists all give no answer to question

You disagree with our answers. That doesn't mean we don't have answers.

[shunyadragon]

That's just a hand-wave, Jimmy. Try actually answering the argument. You say that society is better when people live morally, but why ought one value what's best for society if it's in their own best interest to live selfishly? Why ought someone like the late Pablo Escobar care about society when his crimes made him richer and more powerful than the country he was living in?

The reality of human society does not function on 'why ought one value what's best for society if it's in their own best interest to live selfishly.' Society functions on the collective cooperation and reciprocity of the group, and not whether one individual or group follows selfish motives. It is simply a matter of brute fact that not everyone, individuals or groups, will follow the morals and ethics of society, but human society survives when the majority do most o the time. This is also true by the way o some primate societies.

By the way theists ace the problem also 'why ought one value what's best for society if it's in their own best interest to live selfishly,' because it is obvious that all humanity do not follow the morals and ethics some or all o the time and follow selfish motives instead.

[demi-conservative]

Hume was a moral naturalist you dummy, so you misunderstand the intent of his argument.

You like saying people 'ought' or 'ought not' do stuff, so face challenge of his!

[demi-conservative]

You point out that our responses don't actually answer question about grounding.

Fixed!

[Doug Shaver]

Fixed!

If you can assert it without argument, I can deny it without further argument.

[The Pixie]

One week later, let's do summary!

Guacamole asked how non-theists can do anchoring of ethics in reason. Non-theists all give no answer to question, instead they say what principles they follow. Telling!!...that they can't do grounding.

Let's look at related point. All people here who know apologetics know atheists get panties in twist that normal people think atheists are immoral/amoral. "But we can do moral stuff!!! ", they say!


Now normal people not good at being clear in philosophical way, but what they see and mean is just same thing: ethics of atheists has zero grounding. So why trust morality of theirs???

How are Christians any better? How do Christians know what is right or wrong? By the way, if you say the Bible, I will ask about Exodus 21:20-21.

Who is more moral? The Christian who does right because he is convinced God is watching and he will suffer in the afterlife if he is not good? Or the atheist who does right because that is the right thing to do?

[seer]

How are Christians any better? How do Christians know what is right or wrong? By the way, if you say the Bible, I will ask about Exodus 21:20-21.

We are Christians, we follow the moral teachings of Christ and the New Testament in general.

Who is more moral? The Christian who does right because he is convinced God is watching and he will suffer in the afterlife if he is not good? Or the atheist who does right because that is the right thing to do?

How does the atheist know what is right? Logically he could make anything up and call it right. And Christian motivation is not the fear of God, but the love for God.

[JimL]

We are Christians, we follow the moral teachings of Christ and the New Testament in general.

The Pixie's challenge seer. Exoduss 21:20-21. Do you consider that to be moral behavior because it is biblical?

How does the atheist know what is right? Logically he could make anything up and call it right. And Christian motivation is not the fear of God, but the love for God.

In the human species, that which is right and wrong is that which is in our best interests as a species as well as in the best interests of individuals living together in community. Whether thiest or athiest we both learn good from bad behaviors. The difference is that we atheists, at least those of us who think about such issues, actually understand the "reason" that a thing is considered to be right or wrong behavior, whereas thiests don't base morality on "reason," to a thiest, a behavior is simply right or wrong, because god says so.

[seer]

The Pixie's challenge seer. Exoduss 21:20-21. Do you consider that to be moral behavior because it is biblical?

No Jim, I think they set restrictions and parameters on a widely accepted institution. Scripture never makes a moral judgement on Slavery, doesn't call it good or bad.

In the human species, that which is right and wrong is that which is in our best interests as a species as well as in the best interests of individuals living together in community. Whether thiest or athiest we both learn good from bad behaviors. The difference is that we atheists, at least those of us who think about such issues, actually understand the "reason" that a thing is considered to be right or wrong behavior, whereas thiests don't base morality on "reason," to a thiest, a behavior is simply right or wrong, because god says so.

That makes no sense Jim, the Maoists had reasons for slaughtering millions of dissentients - for the greater good of social control and coherence. Reasons are just as subjective as anything else...

[JimL]

No Jim, I think they set restrictions and parameters on a widely accepted institution. Scripture never makes a moral judgement on Slavery, doesn't call it good or bad.

But Exodus 21:20-21 is not about slavery per se, although it does allow for human beings to be owned as the property of others, but it's about the physical abuse that biblically is considered to be moral sanctioned behavior.

That makes no sense Jim, the Maoists had reasons for slaughtering millions of dissentients - for the greater good of social control and coherence. Reasons are just as subjective as anything else...

Regardless, only one of the reasons could be the correct ones, the ones that come to the best solution in the interests of human community and human beings in general . One can use reason and still come up with the wrong solution. But thiests like yourself do not base your morals on reason, and if you did you would have no reason to add god to the equation.

[seer]

But Exodus 21:20-21 is not about slavery per se, although it does allow for human beings to be owned as the property of others, but it's about the physical abuse that biblically is considered to be moral sanctioned behavior.

No Jim, like I said, scripture never makes a moral judgement on slavery. And it doesn't say that this behavior is necessarily good. You are reading into it. These are laws of restraint, not allowing one to do even worse to his slave.

Regardless, only one of the reasons could be the correct ones, the ones that come to the best solution in the interests of human community and human beings in general . One can use reason and still come up with the wrong solution. But thiests like yourself do not base your morals on reason, and if you did you would have no reason to add god to the equation.

Jim you are doing it again! It is merely your opinion that the general good should be foremost, as opposed to what is good for the ruling elite or the dominant majority. In other words, your reasons are subjective and meaningless - except to yourself.

[JimL]

No Jim, like I said, scripture never makes a moral judgement on slavery. And it doesn't say that this behavior is necessarily good. You are reading into it. These are laws of restraint, not allowing one to do even worse to his slave.

No seer, like I said, it's not about a moral judgement on slavery per se, you are ignoring the fact that scripture here is making a moral judgment on the treatment of slaves. If it is morally wrong to treat slaves thusly, then the bible is morally in the wrong to sanction it.

Jim you are doing it again! It is merely your opinion that the general good should be foremost, as opposed to what is good for the ruling elite or the dominant majority. In other words, your reasons are subjective and meaningless - except to yourself.

No, I don't think so seer, because ultimately it is in every human beings best interests that they are not murdered, robbed, or injured in some other way, by other human beings and the best way to insure that is to be born into a world in which such actions are considered immoral and punishable by law. The same injury due to immoral behavior occuring to one member of the populace, could also happen to the elite ruler. Getting caught or getting away with murder isn't what makes murder either good or bad, and niether is the simple fact that a higher power says it's so.

[seer]

No seer, like I said, it's not about a moral judgement on slavery per se, you are ignoring the fact that scripture here is making a moral judgment on the treatment of slaves. If it is morally wrong to treat slaves thusly, then the bible is morally in the wrong to sanction it.

Jim, let me give you another example. Divorce is wrong, yet God allowed in in the Old Testament. That doesn't mean that God approved of divorce. And why is slavery wrong - because you don't like it? If you were born a white man two hundred years ago in the South you would likely had no problem with slavery. Your moral sense is completely relative and useless.

No, I don't think so seer, because ultimately it is in every human beings best interests that they are not murdered, robbed, or injured in some other way, by other human beings and the best way to insure that is to be born into a world in which such actions are considered immoral and punishable by law. The same injury due to immoral behavior occuring to one member of the populace, could also happen to the elite ruler. Getting caught or getting away with murder isn't what makes murder either good or bad, and niether is the simple fact that a higher power says it's so.

Again Jim, that does not make sense. Yes one of the elite could be murdered, but a good man doing the right thing could equally be murdered. And the elite have that added advantage of being able to afford added security. I mean Jim you have no argument against the atheist Maoist or Stalinist.