So Easy To Be An Atheist!

[Tassman]

That is just stupid Jim, you don't get to define what is moral or not.

[seer]

You are (again) looking for absolute answers in a relative system. They don't exist. Right is defined, for each person, by how the action aligns to their underlying value structure. It's no more complicated than that. And "the majority" is nothing more than the collective sum of individual moral frameworks. It's a short-hand for saying, "most of the members of this society hold X to be a moral good." It requires individuals to hold that position to get to "a majority." And even if everyone in the country said, "X is moral," if my moral framework says it is immoral, I will continue to see it as immoral.

So the majority (the might) is defining right for the rest of us, and if we don't agree they can impose consequences. And if we disagree not only do we not have the power to resist, objectively as you said, our opinion is no more correct than theirs. There is no logical ground to stand on.

[seer]

And you're wrong.

They define what is right for them. It does not define what is right for me.

It matters because I am the one that defines what is right for me. No one can take that power away from me.

That is all very fine, until they jail you. So legally they get to decide.

[JimL]

That is just stupid Jim, you don't get to define what is moral or not. If the powerful minority believe it is a moral good to take advantage of others then it is a moral good to them, your disagreement is meaningless, your definition of moral is meaningless. And no more valid than theirs.

What you just can't seem to grasp seer is that it is not just a matter of opinion, behaviors that do not serve the best interests of society as a whole, thus the individual members thereof, are based on reason, not arbitrary opinion. That murder, that robbery, etc. etc. are not "good" behaviors, that such behaviors do not serve the best interests of the whole of society, is not just opinion, it's a logical fact.

[seer]

What you just can't seem to grasp seer is that it is not just a matter of opinion, behaviors that do not serve the best interests of society as a whole, thus the individual members thereof, are based on reason, not arbitrary opinion. That murder, that robbery, etc. etc. are not "good" behaviors, that such behaviors do not serve the best interests of the whole of society, is not just opinion, it's a logical fact.

But you don't necessarily have to murder or rob to dominate your fellow man, though those could be used. Again Jim you just can't grasp the point. Your belief that the best interests of the whole is a moral good as opposed to the best interests of majority or the powerful elite is completely SUBJECTIVE.

[carpedm9587]

That is all very fine, until they jail you. So legally they get to decide.

Legally is not morally. I don't give a fig who or what decides they can punish me for not thinking like them.

[seer]

Legally is not morally. I don't give a fig who or what decides they can punish me for not thinking like them.

Most law is grounded in morality, but logically you don't have a leg to stand on, I think that is one reason why the founders linked our rights in God.

[carpedm9587]

Most law is grounded in morality,

...and legal is still not equal to moral. You are conflating two different domains.

but logically you don't have a leg to stand on, I think that is one reason why the founders linked our rights in God.

I'm not having any logical problems that I can see. But you seem to be - continually assessing relative systems on absolute terms. As for the founders, they were the product of their age. The vast majority were religious men and specifically Christians. Jefferson appears to be the great exception. They also believed voting rights should be extended to landed white men only. Should we go back to that because "that's what the founders thought? I think not. Today we extend voting rights to all citizens, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religious belief, etc.

"The founders said so" doesn't hold a great deal of weight for me. They were men. Like all men, they can be wrong. I'm more interested in why, so we can toss out the bad and keep the good.

[seer]

...and legal is still not equal to moral. You are conflating two different domains.

Again, most law is grounded in moral belief. We think that rape is wrong (a moral description) so we make laws against that moral wrong.

I'm not having any logical problems that I can see. But you seem to be - continually assessing relative systems on absolute terms. As for the founders, they were the product of their age. The vast majority were religious men and specifically Christians. Jefferson appears to be the great exception. They also believed voting rights should be extended to landed white men only. Should we go back to that because "that's what the founders thought? I think not. Today we extend voting rights to all citizens, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religious belief, etc.

So what is your point? The ideal that rights are grounded in God, not in our fellow man, is still valid. They offered a rationale for why rights are not culturally relative. Which also gave men a moral impetus for resisting those who would trample said rights.

"The founders said so" doesn't hold a great deal of weight for me. They were men. Like all men, they can be wrong. I'm more interested in why, so we can toss out the bad and keep the good.

Right, the Constitution has little meaning for leftists...

[carpedm9587]

Again, most law is grounded in moral belief. We think that rape is wrong (a moral description) so we make laws against that moral wrong.

Some law is so based. A great deal is not. The point is - legal and moral are two different domains. You're conflating them in a way that does not bolster your argument about "might makes right."

So what is your point?

What it has always been - that you are insisting on a moral model you a) cannot show exists, and b) cannot show is superior to moral subjectivism/relativism without falling into the trap of continually repeating the definition of the terms.

The ideal that rights are grounded in God, not in our fellow man, is still valid.

No. It fails is you cannot show god exists - and it fails because you cannot show that god's moral framework is any more "binding" on me that that of any other individual - without collapsing to a "might makes right" argument.

They offered a rationale for why rights are not culturally relative.

They offer no such rationale at all. You don't seem to understand, Seer, that you have yet to make a rational argument for moral absolutism/objectivism. You think you have - that much is clear, but you have never done anything more than repeatedly point out the definition of the terms "relative/subjective" and "absolute/objective." You've never made the case for morality having to be absolute/objective.

Which also gave men a moral impetus for resisting those who would trample said rights.

Any man has an impetus to resist those who would trample rights. The problem with a "god-centered" claim is that it creates significant resistance to change. "God says so" was used to defend slavery, resist women's suffrage, and is now being used to resist LGBTQ rights and freedoms. "God wants X" is a powerful statement for those who still believe in god. Unfortunately, what is being reflected is not usually what "god" wants - it's a resistance to change that those who don't want the change want.

Right, the Constitution has little meaning for leftists...

Actually, the Constitution holds significant meaning for me. Maybe it's because I'm not actually a leftist. But if someone wants to defend the Constitution, they will need to do so on terms more substantial than "that's what the founders wanted." Only a fool blindly follows a mistaken man into folly.

[seer]

Some law is so based. A great deal is not. The point is - legal and moral are two different domains. You're conflating them in a way that does not bolster your argument about "might makes right."

Think of all the laws that relate to behavior. They are originally grounded in moral opinion. And I have been arguing that might makes right per se, but that right defines right - which it does.

What it has always been - that you are insisting on a moral model you a) cannot show exists, and b) cannot show is superior to moral subjectivism/relativism without falling into the trap of continually repeating the definition of the terms.

Right and you can not objectively or logically make the case as to why your moral opinion is correct if you disagreed with the majority, besides claiming that you value what you value.

No. It fails is you cannot show god exists - and it fails because you cannot show that god's moral framework is any more "binding" on me that that of any other individual - without collapsing to a "might makes right" argument.

I'm just pointing out why the Founders grounded rights in God, your unbelief, again, is immaterial.

They offer no such rationale at all. You don't seem to understand, Seer, that you have yet to make a rational argument for moral absolutism/objectivism. You think you have - that much is clear, but you have never done anything more than repeatedly point out the definition of the terms "relative/subjective" and "absolute/objective." You've never made the case for morality having to be absolute/objective.

What? Obviously you have not read much of the Founders or Locke who they relied on.

Any man has an impetus to resist those who would trample rights. The problem with a "god-centered" claim is that it creates significant resistance to change. "God says so" was used to defend slavery, resist women's suffrage, and is now being used to resist LGBTQ rights and freedoms. "God wants X" is a powerful statement for those who still believe in god. Unfortunately, what is being reflected is not usually what "god" wants - it's a resistance to change that those who don't want the change want.

That is all very nice, and rather meaning less, since your opinion has no objective reality.

Actually, the Constitution holds significant meaning for me. Maybe it's because I'm not actually a leftist. But if someone wants to defend the Constitution, they will need to do so on terms more substantial than "that's what the founders wanted." Only a fool blindly follows a mistaken man into folly.

Well you said that the Founders did not have a great deal of weight for you. Typical leftist response.

[carpedm9587]

Think of all the laws that relate to behavior. They are originally grounded in moral opinion.

All laws are about behavior. Laws that are not grounded in "morality" include procedural laws (e.g., you have to get a permit before you build a house), tax laws (here is what you owe), and the list goes on. You are thinking about laws against killing, stealing, etc. I agree - some laws have a root in morality: it is the collective's way of saying, "this is how we want to live." Not all, and I am not sure you can even make the case it is most. But be that as it will, what is "legal" and what is "moral" are not the same thing. They are related in some instances, but they are different domains. Not all that is moral is legal, and not all that is legal is moral.

And I have been arguing that might makes right per se, but that right defines right - which it does.

So I have no idea how you characterize the difference between "defines" and "makes." In essence, you appear to be arguing that whoever has the most power gets to declare what is "moral." Whoever has the most power gets to enforce their vision of what is moral and the weaker do not have the power to override that. But enforcing moral and defining moral (or making moral) are not the same thing. I repeat, the most powerful being in existence may be able to punish me for not thinking as they do - they cannot override my moral framework. The most they can do is kill me and cause my moral framework to cease to exist.

Right and you can not objectively or logically make the case as to why your moral opinion is correct if you disagreed with the majority, besides claiming that you value what you value.

Why would anyone try to make an objective claim about a subjective framework? Again, you fall into the trap of measuring a relative/subjective reality against your vision of an absolute/objective framework - which you cannot even show exists, or show why it is better than a relative/subjective one. All you do is continually complain that subjective/relative frameworks cannot make objective statements. We know that already...they're subjective.

Seer, I have said this before, and I think you still don't get it. You're like the guy saying, "your green car is not blue." We already know a green car is not blue. You have not shown that blue cars are in some measurable way better than green ones. You just keep reminding us that "green is not blue." I agree - 100% - subjective/relative is not objective/absolute. No disagreement. No argument. Now make the case that subjective/relative is WORSE than objective/absolute without merely reminding us that they are not the same thing.

I'm just pointing out why the Founders grounded rights in God, your unbelief, again, is immaterial.

And your belief is likewise immaterial. We can do this all day - but it won't really get us anywhere.

What? Obviously you have not read much of the Founders or Locke who they relied on.

Actually, I have - and my statement stands. See above.

That is all very nice, and rather meaning less, since your opinion has no objective reality.

You just keep going back to Technique #1. Again - I've never disagreed that subjective/relative things are not objective/absolute. You've simply never shown objective/absolute is in any way better.

Well you said that the Founders did not have a great deal of weight for you. Typical leftist response.

No - that is NOT what I said. What I said was the argument, "because the founders said so" is not a rational or cogent argument. It is an appeal to authority. I am more interested in why they said it than that they said it. Any man, at any time, can be wrong. Anyone who swallows an argument solely because of the identity of the speaker is accepting positions on the basis of authority and has stopped thinking rationally or critically. The founders said many things I disagree with. They also said many things I agree with. I agree on the basis of the strength of the arguments - not the identity of the speaker.

[Tassman]

Most law is grounded in morality, but logically you don't have a leg to stand on, I think that is one reason why the founders linked our rights in God.

It is YOU who doesn't have a logical leg to stand on. Your "logic" is grounded upon a premise, i.e God, which cannot be shown to be true. Therefore your entire argument is unsound. "A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[seer]

So I have no idea how you characterize the difference between "defines" and "makes." In essence, you appear to be arguing that whoever has the most power gets to declare what is "moral." Whoever has the most power gets to enforce their vision of what is moral and the weaker do not have the power to override that. But enforcing moral and defining moral (or making moral) are not the same thing. I repeat, the most powerful being in existence may be able to punish me for not thinking as they do - they cannot override my moral framework. The most they can do is kill me and cause my moral framework to cease to exist.

Well yes, those with the most power do get to define what is right, and you are correct they can not make you believe what they believe. But so what, in that instance what you believe has no moral weight, or influence.

Why would anyone try to make an objective claim about a subjective framework? Again, you fall into the trap of measuring a relative/subjective reality against your vision of an absolute/objective framework - which you cannot even show exists, or show why it is better than a relative/subjective one. All you do is continually complain that subjective/relative frameworks cannot make objective statements. We know that already...they're subjective.

Seer, I have said this before, and I think you still don't get it. You're like the guy saying, "your green car is not blue." We already know a green car is not blue. You have not shown that blue cars are in some measurable way better than green ones. You just keep reminding us that "green is not blue." I agree - 100% - subjective/relative is not objective/absolute. No disagreement. No argument. Now make the case that subjective/relative is WORSE than objective/absolute without merely reminding us that they are not the same thing.

No, what I'm saying is that you have no logical ground to argue against what the powerful deem as moral or not.

Actually, I have - and my statement stands. See above.

You need to read Locke's second treatise of government, which had a profound effect on the Founders. He grounded human and property rights in God. The unalienable Rights of the Founders were not possible apart from God. And this gave us a moral and logical rationale to throw off the tyranny of the King.

No - that is NOT what I said. What I said was the argument, "because the founders said so" is not a rational or cogent argument. It is an appeal to authority. I am more interested in why they said it than that they said it. Any man, at any time, can be wrong. Anyone who swallows an argument solely because of the identity of the speaker is accepting positions on the basis of authority and has stopped thinking rationally or critically. The founders said many things I disagree with. They also said many things I agree with. I agree on the basis of the strength of the arguments - not the identity of the speaker.

Well I can find no other source for unalienable human rights than God, can you?

[carpedm9587]

Well yes, those with the most power do get to define what is right,

No - they get to enforce what THEY believe is right. No one can define what IS right for me other than me.

and you are correct they can not make you believe what they believe. But so what, in that instance what you believe has no moral weight, or influence.

It has moral weight - for me. It has influence, for those I influence. If I am weaker, that will be, by definition, a smaller set than the stronger person/group.

No, what I'm saying is that you have no logical ground to argue against what the powerful deem as moral or not.

I know you're saying that. You've said it over and over again, and I've responded to it over and over again. Responding again doesn't seem to me to have any value; you're not getting it. So I'll leave you to your misconception.

You need to read Locke's second treatise of government, which had a profound effect on the Founders. He grounded human and property rights in God. The unalienable Rights of the Founders were not possible apart from God. And this gave us a moral and logical rationale to throw off the tyranny of the King.

I've read Locke, and I know what his views were (though they are admittedly dusty brain cells. All of what you report is a matter of history. Some day, I suspect we will look back on it and say, "Locke neglected the biggest tyrant of them all: the man who claims authority to specify what a god he cannot even show exists wants." Ultimately, religion is the last tyranny of man.

Well I can find no other source for unalienable human rights than God, can you?

I have to admit that I am not big on "inalienable" rights. It is a theocentric language. Rights are rooted in our nature as humans, and the general social contract (e.g., the "golden rule.") They are rooted in reason. Rooting them in "god says so" when no one can even demonstrate such a being actually exists is an exercise in folly. As society more and more secularizes and lets go of its ancient gods, they will recognize more and more that rights may be "natural," but they are not 'inalienable." We see freedom of speech as a right because we value what type of society it creates. Many countries do not do so, so apparently "freedom of speech is not "inalienable" because the right can and is given away or taken away. So is the right to liberty - and life. Even here in the U.S., we have capital punishment - so the state apparently can terminate someone's right to life. We have more people in prison than any other country, so the state can withdraw the right of liberty.

We pay lip service to "inalienable rights," but they do not exist in actuality.