Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[Jichard]

But even here, there is no objective reason why our survival as a species would be a moral good.

Nonsense, I'm asking you why isn't it just as morally good to promote the well-being of my sentient life at the expense of, or to the detriment of, other sentient life? If doing that promotes my well being and the survival of me, my family or tribe why is it morally wrong. Certainly our survival is a moral good.

You know a person is dishonest when they blatantly contradict themselves in their attempt to say whatever they find convenient at the moment.

[The Pixie]

I said: Whether God created nature to act as it does, or whether Satan negatively influence nature somewhere in the distant past is not relevant.

Ah, right.

And why are neither possibility relevant?

What? The point being they did not did not believe that killing dissidents was immoral. They may have believed that for any number of reason, like the only thing that matters is survival, or that in a godless universe nothing is ultimately moral/immoral. You act like you are speaking for all atheists.

Interesting. I though you were acting like you speak for all atheists. At least I am an atheist!

Let us be clear, then seer: Are you claiming atheists get their morality from nature?

Because when you said "It doesn't matter Tass if the majority resists it if those at the top have the power. Look at North Korea, Cuba, China, most of the countries in Africa or the Middle East etc... A small powerful group controls the rest - just like what we see with the higher primates. All quite natural." it sounded to this atheist like you were speaking for all atheists.

According to Christianity, God is the author of nature and God is perfectly moral. If these actions are "perfectly natural" what can we conclude about their morality in a Christian viewpoint? Perfectly natural actions engineered by a perfectly moral agent...

You are just being dense now and you know it. Like I explained, human actions do not follow their designed purpose. God did not create us to do evil. But you already knew this Pixie.

I am using a stupid argument to highlight the stupidity of yours. You are insisting that atheists get their morality from nature, when the reality is that Chrisrtians have far more reason to, because they believe nature was engineered by a perfectly moral agent. You know that is nonsense for Christians, you just need to take the next step and realise it is nonsense for atheists.

Come on, seer; throw off the decades of conditioning, and acknowledge that atheist morality is not based on evolution.

The question is why would the atheist find any natural act objectionable? Do the fish complain because it is wet?

Or perhaps the question is why would the Christian find any natural act objectionable? Do the fish complain because it is wet?

See I can append the fish thing to a nonsensical argument too. It does not transform mine into a good argument, does it? Why suppose it does that for your argument?

The reality is that atheists feel empathy and have as much a sense of fairness as Chrisrians. Most uphold the golden rule just as well as Christians (and yes, they sometimes fail, just like Christians).

Furthermore they do so without believing in an all-knowing God peering over their shoulder as they do it. They do it without fear of hell if they do wrong and without the promise of heaven if they do it right. When it comes to morality, atheists beat Christians, because most atheists do what is right because it is the right thing to do.

[seer]

Ah, right.

And why are neither possibility relevant?

Not when it comes to teleology. In other words is it not so important how we got this way but where we are going.

Interesting. I though you were acting like you speak for all atheists. At least I am an atheist!

Let us be clear, then seer: Are you claiming atheists get their morality from nature?

Don't you see the problem? Of course the atheist gets his morality from nature, logically, that is all there is. Is there a source outside of nature for moral truths?

[Tassman]

Of course Tass... But the fact is, if there is no ultimate purpose or teleology for humankind then - "what ever is, is right." Survival is the ultimate good, not matter how one gets there. But even here, there is no objective reason why our survival as a species would be a moral good.

To claim there's "purpose or teleology for humankind" is special pleading. Outside the various religious mythologies there's no credible evidence of an ultimate purpose for any creature and this includes humans.

[Tassman]

Not when it comes to teleology. In other words is it not so important how we got this way but where we are going.

We are not going anywhere beyond the grave; to think we are is wishful thinking and really rather pathetic

Don't you see the problem? Of course the atheist gets his morality from nature, logically, that is all there is.

Yes! There's no good reason to think otherwise. Inventing gods to give us a purpose in life is not a solution, it's escapism.

Is there a source outside of nature for moral truths?

There's no good reason to think there's anything "outside of nature".

[The Pixie]

Not when it comes to teleology. In other words is it not so important how we got this way but where we are going.

As Jichard points out, Christians are happy to use the "natural" argument for morality when it suits them.

Don't you see the problem? Of course the atheist gets his morality from nature, logically, that is all there is. Is there a source outside of nature for moral truths?

Atheists get their morality by thinking. I suspect that is what you are missing.

[robertb]

Not really, I think generally the golden rule is applicable, and intuitive for type B.

Though the golden rule is applicable, you are still left determining right and wrong in order to apply the rule - as I said, some version of the harm principle as you alluded to earlier. This would still seem to be, necessarily, a distinct grounding from scriptural grounding.

[seer]

To claim there's "purpose or teleology for humankind" is special pleading. Outside the various religious mythologies there's no credible evidence of an ultimate purpose for any creature and this includes humans.

Stop with the special pleading nonsense Tass, but the fact is if you are correct then survival is the ultimate good, not matter how one gets there. Whether by cruelty or kindness - and even there, there is no objective reason why we as a species should survive. Its all meaningless Tass, we are meaningless.

[seer]

As Jichard points out, Christians are happy to use the "natural" argument for morality when it suits them.

I have no idea what he means.

Atheists get their morality by thinking. I suspect that is what you are missing.

And your thinking is not a part of nature? And yes, I'm sure the Stalinists and Maoists got their morality by thinking... Do you really think that in your materialistic universe that you have a choice about what you think and the conclusions you come to? Your buddy Tass will tell you it is all predetermined.

[crepuscule]

Do you really think that in your materialistic universe that you have a choice about what you think and the conclusions you come to?

Afaik materialism and free choice are not incompatible (and neither are atheism and free choice, btw). But imo theism and free choice seem to be at odds: according to theism, everything that begins to exist was ultimately caused by God. Since the choices we make began to exist, it follows that according to theism our choices are ultimately caused by God, and not us.

[seer]

Though the golden rule is applicable, you are still left determining right and wrong in order to apply the rule - as I said, some version of the harm principle as you alluded to earlier. This would still seem to be, necessarily, a distinct grounding from scriptural grounding.

Really, I'm not sure what this means. If I apply the golden rule, and I'm some what rational, the answers would be obvious.

[seer]

Afaik materialism and free choice are not incompatible (and neither are atheism and free choice, btw). But imo theism and free choice seem to be at odds: according to theism, everything that begins to exist was ultimately caused by God. Since the choices we make began to exist, it follows that according to theism our choices are ultimately caused by God, and not us.

No, not if God created men with genuine freedom of the will. And how is free will compatible with materialism? If you take the ghost out of the machine, what do you have left but the machine?

[Jichard]

No, not if God created men with genuine freedom of the will. And how is free will compatible with materialism? If you take the ghost out of the machine, what do you have left but the machine?

Ah, you're pretending that the only form of materialism is eliminative materialism, even though you've quote-mined and misrepresented people who think otherwise, such as Harris, Chalmers, and Searle.

Utterly ridiculous.

[The Thinker]

Or jumping off of other discussions, where do we ground moral questions. I think three of the obvious choices we have are:

1. The individual.

2. The society (either by the majority or by a politically powerful elite).

3. In a Creator, something like the Christian God, with an immutable, good, moral character.

I don't think most would agree with option one, if you take it to its logical end we would have moral chaos. Option two is better, but logically it would lead to relativism, cultural mores could be quite different. It may be perfectly acceptable to summarily execute political dissents is some societies and not others. And neither choice (to execute or not execute) would be more valid or correct than the other. Or option three. Where there exists a transcendent moral law, grounded in something eternal, good and immutable. Not subject to the changing mores and whims of men or culture. Which would suggest that our best moral ideals are not merely grounded in ethically shifting cultures or are an accident of biology. And don't we all agree that there really are things that are wrong? Wrong no matter what a culture may sanction? And even if we don't always agree what these specific moral wrongs are, we can agree, I think, that such a category exists.

Wonderfully totally biased question. For option 3, how do I know the Christian god is good? He supports slavery, sexism, homophobia, and genocide, among other things. It is simply not a given that the Christian god is good, you need to justify this. This is something you Christians commonly mistake. Step out of your bubble and justify the things you normally take for granted. So if I was presented with three different gods, how would I be able to compare and contrast them to determine which one was better? What standard would I use?

[The Thinker]

Ah, you're pretending that the only form of materialism is eliminative materialism, even though you've quote-mined and misrepresented people who think otherwise, such as Harris, Chalmers, and Searle.

Utterly ridiculous.

You can't expect a Christian to be honest now, c'mon.