Let me review this thread. I may also throw in some criticism now and then.
"Secular Morality" may mean "morals for atheists." Up to this post, have atheists like Tassman, Jicard, JimL, etc. shown that there exists at least one moral system that is applicable to any atheist's life and which can be derived from what is known about life in general? [Feel free to offer a better statement of the thread than the one just above.]
Apparently no reader of this thread knows about this definition of a self-evident statement: The opposite of the statement is unthinkable. For one thing, in Mortimer J. Adler's words, we ought to desire what is really good for us and nothing else. Now, is there any reader of this thread who would argue the opposite of that statement, i.e., we ought to desire what is really bad for us?
Dr. Adler called that sentence the first principle of Moral Philosophy.
I may have more on how to use that principle next time.
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Secular Morality?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post
Morality is neither “rational” nor “irrational”; it’s merely a system of rules devised by humans to enable them to function as they evolved to function, namely as cooperative social beings living among others of the species in cohesive, supportive communities.
…and I’m sure you think you’re enlightened in your subjective interpretation of the so-called absolute laws of God. What most people like you claim to be the "objective" laws of God usually coincides with what they subjectively feel to be true.
Murder is not just 'killing' others, it is by definition the unlawful taking of life. So its wrongfulness is based upon the rules devised by a given society. And these in turn are governed by the truth of our evolutionary heritage, programmed by genes. None of that is arbitrary. Our feelings and attitudes are rooted in human nature; and "murder" is a common prohibition in all societies.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYet in your universe bad men often prosper and good men often suffer unduly.
And no matter how you live all men come to the same end.
It makes no difference if you are a Mother Teresa or a Stalin - they both end up as dust.
This is why morality is irrational in your world.
But what one considers enlightened is subjective. I'm sure that the Communists and Radical Muslims think that they are enlightened. But I'm glad that you agree that totalitarianism is morally good as long as it promotes social cohesion.
Originally posted by seer View PostBut that is not an answer, how is the wrongness of murder wrong a "truth maker?"
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Jichard View PostJust did. So you can stop pretending otherwise:
Because the truth-makers don't depend on any mind's views on that matter.
But that is not an answer, how is the wrongness of murder wrong a "truth maker?"Last edited by seer; 07-25-2015, 05:42 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostJust stop Jichard, and explain in your own words.
Because the truth-makers don't depend on any mind's views on that matter.
Why for instance is murder objectively wrong?
Anyway, you asked:I answered. Now free to deal with that answer, instead of dishonestly moving the goalposts to a question of normative ethics.
How do you know that, and how is it wrongness not subjective. If you can't actually articulate your position, without depending on quotes from others then I'm done.
Because the truth-makers don't depend on any mind's views on that matter.
In know you'll never address that answer, because you never, ever address anything that's inconvenient for your pet position, even when it's explained to you over and over and over and...
Here is true moral statement: justice does not exist in the moral realism theory. Doesn't get any more true than that.
And feel free to finally muster an honest response to what was written:
"Nothing in the definition of "moral system" implies that life is like seer's fantasy / movie-world, where the consequences are such that the good guys all get rewarded and the bad guys all get punished. Instead, a moral system is basically just a system of moral statements, etc. And whether the moral systems statements are true or false (or whether it's rational to think that it's statements are true or false) does not depend on whether or not it has the positive consequences you so wish for. To say otherwise is the fallacy of appeal to consequences."
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Jichard View PostBecause the truth-makers don't depend on any mind's views on that matter.
Nothing in the definition of "moral system" implies that life is like seer's fantasy / movie-world, where the consequences are such that the good guys all get rewarded and the bad guys all get punished. Instead, a moral system is basically just a system of moral statements, etc. And whether the moral systems statements are true or false (or whether it's rational to think that it's statements are true or false) does not depend on whether or not it has the positive consequences you so wish for. To say otherwise is the fallacy of appeal to consequences.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd how is any of this objective or mind independent?
Anyway, same silly mistake on your part:
You're making the same mistake on "subjective" that I've dealt with before, where you pretend that if minds made a given position, question, etc., that makes the question, position, etc. subjectivist. If you had a shred of honesty, you'd deal with my response, instead of just repeating the same mistake:
Nonsense, and another instance of your committing the use/mention mistake, even though you've been called on this before. The "objective/subjective" issue is not about whether minds make the theory or whether one likes the theory or whatever ever other nonsensical stuff you're going on about. Otherwise, every position would be subjective, since minds make the position or someone likes the position or whatever. Instead, the "objective/subjective" distinction is about in virtue of what are the theory's claims true or false. Thus, for example, evolutionary theory is objectively true, since it's true in virtue of mind-independent stuff. It would therefore be silly to say that evolutionary theory is subjective because it's made by humans or because it expresses an idea that people like. Those have nothing to do with whether or not it's subjective. Parallel points for what you've said. You've had this explained to you before. Please stop pretending otherwise.
And your response was particularly ridiculous, since you contradicted your own OP, which acknowledges that moral realism is an objectivist position, not a subjectivist one. You're apparently so desperate to say whatever you deem necessary for your apologetic position, that you don't even check if you're being consistent with yourself. As I predicted.
How exactly does having moral reasons for acting lead to moral obligations?
Stop cutting and pasting other peoples work and answer yourself.
Time to put up Jichard, give us a moral fact that is mind independent and how you came by that information - how your opinion is not culturally driven. Take us all out of our subjective world and show us a glittering objective moral truth. And try using your own words.
You're making the same mistake on "subjective" that I've dealt with before, where you pretend that if minds made a given position, question, etc., that makes the question, position, etc. subjectivist. If you had a shred of honesty, you'd deal with my response, instead of just repeating the same mistake:
Nonsense, and another instance of your committing the use/mention mistake, even though you've been called on this before. The "objective/subjective" issue is not about whether minds make the theory or whether one likes the theory or whatever ever other nonsensical stuff you're going on about. Otherwise, every position would be subjective, since minds make the position or someone likes the position or whatever. Instead, the "objective/subjective" distinction is about in virtue of what are the theory's claims true or false. Thus, for example, evolutionary theory is objectively true, since it's true in virtue of mind-independent stuff. It would therefore be silly to say that evolutionary theory is subjective because it's made by humans or because it expresses an idea that people like. Those have nothing to do with whether or not it's subjective. Parallel points for what you've said. You've had this explained to you before. Please stop pretending otherwise.
And your response was particularly ridiculous, since you contradicted your own OP, which acknowledges that moral realism is an objectivist position, not a subjectivist one. You're apparently so desperate to say whatever you deem necessary for your apologetic position, that you don't even check if you're being consistent with yourself. As I predicted.
Really Jichard, is there something wrong with you? I don't agree that moral realism is either true or based in reality. And I haven't. I agree that you believe it.
And don't dishonestly pretend that I'm asking you what I'm claiming. I'm asking what you accept.
Yes moral realism, a theory or system, is void of justice. Which makes it ethically irrational.
You didn't address a word of what was written. Feel free to try again:
Nothing in the definition of "moral system" implies that life is like seer's fantasy / movie-world, where the consequences are such that the good guys all get rewarded and the bad guys all get punished. Instead, a moral system is basically just a system of moral statements, etc. And whether the moral systems statements are true or false (or whether it's rational to think that it's statements are true or false) does not depend on whether or not it has the positive consequences you so wish for. To say otherwise is the fallacy of appeal to consequences.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostA moral system requires justice to enforce it within communities; this is why we have a legal system and courts. It does not require ultimate justice as per “heaven" or "hell" ...that’s just make-believe designed to scare the children and make them behave.
For perhaps the millionth time, social cohesion is necessary for the survival of social creatures such as us...even if it’s achieved via a totalitarian ideology like religion or a dictatorship. But there are better, more enlightened ways to achieve social cohesion, as can be seen in many democratic secular states worldwide...my country of Australia for one.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Jichard View PostIt's pretty dishonest of a person to pretend that questions have not been answered, when they've been answered multiple times.
The general analysis: we have moral obligations because there are moral reasons for actions, developing certain character traits, and so on. That's the standard analysis: obligations arise from reasons. And moral reasons are constituted by the properties/features discussed in welfare utilitarianism (ex: effects of well-being) and virtue ethics (ex: character traits like compassion).
And your response was particularly ridiculous, since you contradicted your own OP, which acknowledges that moral realism is an objectivist position, not a subjectivist one. You're apparently so desperate to say whatever you deem necessary for your apologetic position, that you don't even check if you're being consistent with yourself.
Of course, it would be rational to think that a moral system makes true claims. After all, I'm not fool enough to think that definition of "moral system" implies that life is like seer's fantasy / movie-world, where the consequences are such that the good guys all get rewarded and the bad guys all get punished. Instead, a moral system is basically just a system of moral statements, etc. Nor am I fool enough to think that whether the moral systems statements are true or false (or whether it's rational to think that it's statements are true or false) depends on whether or not it has the positive consequences you so wish for. To say otherwise is the fallacy of appeal to consequences.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostOh, wow, you think that you and your fellow atheists are 100% in accord regarding what is right behavior.
Maybe Stalin was atheist, too, when he ruled the Soviet empire. You agree with him 100% based on what you seem to think, see above. From my view, that is horrible
Oh, wow, so someone came up with a procedure for measuring the goodness of any action, and people fell in love with that procedure. So captivating is it that in time the whole world will use it. Rising before our own eyes is the possibility that in time all actions will be ethical or moral from then and on, ever and forever. Oh, what hath science wrought! Or is making
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/i...al-to-ridicule
Is mockery the only defence you theists have? Pathetic!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostRight, so a moral system would not be rational without justice. And you can imply what you like - your idea of morality is just as irrational as moral realism.
Originally posted by seer View PostRight, and if we have totalitarian rule by a small group of alpha males, or the 1%, that maintain social cohesion then that is morally good.Last edited by Tassman; 07-24-2015, 11:55 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOK, I'll bite - what facts is morality based on, if not physical facts. I mean in the end, you are basing moral realism on something - correct? What is that something. Human behavior? Astrology? Divination? Intuition? What?
Originally posted by Jichard View PostThe general analysis: we have moral obligations because there are moral reasons for actions, developing certain character traits, and so on. That's the standard analysis: obligations arise from reasons. And moral reasons are constituted by the properties/features discussed in welfare utilitarianism (ex: effects of well-being) and virtue ethics (ex: character traits like compassion).
Talk about being disingenuous. I agreed that you made made up a theory and called it objective.
Now, as I told you:
"And your response was particularly ridiculous, since you contradicted your own OP, which acknowledges that moral realism is an objectivist position, not a subjectivist one."
Originally posted by seerOriginally posted by JichardThus, for example, evolutionary theory is objectively true, since it's true in virtue of mind-independent stuff.
Please actually address the mistake I pointed out, without your usual dishonest evasions. Here's my explanation of the mistake again:
You're making the same mistake on "subjective" that I've dealt with before, where you pretend that if minds made a given position, question, etc., that makes the question, position, etc. subjectivist. If you had a shred of honesty, you'd deal with my response, instead of just repeating the same mistake:
Nonsense, and another instance of your committing the use/mention mistake, even though you've been called on this before. The "objective/subjective" issue is not about whether minds make the theory or whether one likes the theory or whatever ever other nonsensical stuff you're going on about. Otherwise, every position would be subjective, since minds make the position or someone likes the position or whatever. Instead, the "objective/subjective" distinction is about in virtue of what are the theory's claims true or false. Thus, for example, evolutionary theory is objectively true, since it's true in virtue of mind-independent stuff. It would therefore be silly to say that evolutionary theory is subjective because it's made by humans or because it expresses an idea that people like. Those have nothing to do with whether or not it's subjective. Parallel points for what you've said. You've had this explained to you before. Please stop pretending otherwise.
And your response was particularly ridiculous, since you contradicted your own OP, which acknowledges that moral realism is an objectivist position, not a subjectivist one. You're apparently so desperate to say whatever you deem necessary for your apologetic position, that you don't even check if you're being consistent with yourself. As I predicted.
Tell me, would any human system of laws be rational without justice Jichard? I think every one here knows the answer.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostChristianity is irrelevant. Faith, dogma, and revelation lead to incorrect, untestable, or conflicting conclusions…as evidenced by the disagreement among Christians about right and wrong behaviour.
What’s “morally good” is the behaviour which enables the human ‘machine’ to function as nature intended it to function via evolution, namely as cooperative social beings living among others of the species in cohesive, supportive communities. It is science that provides these facts, not religion, and it is the application of this knowledge via inductive inference that enables the formulation of rules of behaviour.
“From the perspective of neuroscience and brain evolution, the routine rejection of scientific approaches to moral behavior based on Hume’s warning against deriving 'ought from is' seems unfortunate, especially as the warning is limited to deductive inferences..."- Patricia Churchland. Cited Wiki.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostWhat’s “morally good” is the behaviour which enables the human ‘machine’ to function as nature intended it to function via evolution, namely as cooperative social beings living among others of the species in cohesive, supportive communities. It is science that provides these facts, not religion, and it is the application of this knowledge via inductive inference that enables the formulation of rules of behaviour.Last edited by seer; 07-24-2015, 06:37 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThe only rationale required for any human system of laws is that they attain the goal for which they're intended, namely social cohesion. "Justice" is dispensed for the sole reason of maintaining this function. Justice does not imply an ultimate system of rewards and punishments in the sky when we die and there's no credible evidence for this fantasy notion in any event.
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
|
14 responses
42 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 03:30 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
78 responses
411 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 10:50 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
303 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM |
Leave a comment: