Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Atheism And Moral Progress
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by JimL; 09-13-2019, 04:35 PM.
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostAnd I agree, Carpe. I was just using the golden rule to explain the function of moral principles in general. You don't want someone to murder you, or to rob you, then the moral against those behaviors is an absolute good for you and the society to which you belong.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostAgain, your use of "absolute" is not appropriate, IMO, in this context. Philosophically, and in the context of morality, "absolute" essentially means "at all times and places." It refers to a principle that applies everywhere and everywhen without regard to context. As best I can tell, it is essentially interchangable with "universal." We believe the laws of logic and mathematics are "absolute" principles. There is no way of showing that moral principles or the golden rule have such a character. It is true that the "golden rule" appears in most human societies - but there is nothing about the rule that can be shown to have the absolute nature of a logical or mathematical fundamental, AFAIK.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo Carp, such universal moral law only exists if God exists. Since I believe God exists, I believe said laws exist.Last edited by Tassman; 09-14-2019, 12:20 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo, the point is equal rights is just a legal fiction, there is nothing equal in nature. It is make believe.
So what is your point? They were just acting as the evolutionary process created them to act. Why do you dislike what nature produces so much? And no, with materialism there is no evil. Just animals doing what animals do.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post'Equal rights' reflect the values of a given society and are given the force of law.
No, they were Christians doing what Christians historically do.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI think that there are some morals that are absolute with respect to human societies such as the moral against murdering each other, or robbing each other etc. That's not to say that such morals are objective realities in and of themselves.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostRight a made up idea - where do you find equal anything in nature?
Why is "made up idea" a thing you seem to find repugnant for some reason?
For the record, there are many "equals" both in nature and in "made up ideas." The atomic weight of all atoms of the same element are "equal." The distance between the sun and the earth can be "equal" at different points in time (though it is constantly changing). And sapient beings can "make up" the idea that we wish to live in a society where all people are considered "equal" under the law. It is absolutely a "made up idea." I happen to like that idea, and think it is a good way to structure a society. Most Americans agree. I dare say most sapient beings would agree. Even a "made up" idea can be a good one.Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-14-2019, 06:55 AM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYou are saying (I think) that a truth that is subjectively true to sapient beings can be absolute in nature? How is this possible?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI'm not suggesting that morals are absolute in nature, morals are not things that exist in themselves, but morals can be absolute in that as laws they serve the best interests, "the good," of human societies.
Bottom line, you cannot assess "good" without specifying "to whom" and "as measured by what metric?" The former makes it relative. The latter, I believe, makes it subjective.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostAgain, Jim, you are using the word "absolute" in a sense that I do not think you can support/defend. And we have already had the discussion about your use of "good." You are attempting to carve out absolute and objective claims for words that represent things that are clearly subjective. "Good" does not exist in nature and is never intrinsic to a thing (idea, object, etc.). It is an assessment by a valuer. What is "good" to one may well not be "good" to another, making the word relative and subjective. I do not see how you escape this reality.
Bottom line, you cannot assess "good" without specifying "to whom" and "as measured by what metric?" The former makes it relative. The latter, I believe, makes it subjective.Last edited by JimL; 09-14-2019, 08:41 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostBut we are not speaking of individuals, the subjectivity of individuals, we're speaking of societies, groups of people, and what is "good" for societies, for communities of people, which has nothing to do with the subjective beliefs of individuals. The moral against murder and theft, afaics, is always a "good," is always benificial for society.
The moral prohibition against random killing (murder is a poor choice because it self-defines as bad) and theft is not objectively for the good of society - it is for the good for a society that values life and personal property, respectively. If a society does not, then these things will not be perceived as "good." A society comprised of individuals who value money above life might disagree with your prohibition against killing. A society that does not have the concept of personal property will not have a prohibition against theft. A society that see power, virulence, or honor as demonstrated by successful theft will not have your prohibition against theft (see the concept of "counting coup" among Native Americans, which includes this concept related to theft as well as other "acts of bravery").
You cannot find a "good" for society that is "objectively" good. It is good TO someone based on someone's selected metric. You are trying to create an absolute/objective "good" where such a thing cannot exist. You are looking from the perspective of your OWN personal preferences, and declaring them to be "objectively good." It doesn't work that way.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostRight a made up idea - where do you find equal anything in nature?
That is just untrue and stupid Tass. The fact is if materialism is true we are only doing what evolutionary process created us to do.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Postof Law-giver deity. Rather they are the product of the evolution of the necessary social behavior for humanity to survive as cooperative intelligent social animals.
But is NOT true according to you. So how do you explain the history of Christian violence with regard to the Christian enslavement of tens of thousands of Africans, the destruction of Native American culture and systematic discrimination against blacks during the Jim Crow era, etc. etc. etc.
First Tass, the majority of Christian through most of History had nothing to do with slavery, second it was largely Christians that took down slavery in the West. Third, discrimination and racism are not New Testament principles - just the opposite, and you know that. And it is not like slavery is an evil in your world - just animals doing what animals do - why do you dislike nature so much?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostJim - a society does not assess anything. Individuals do. And individuals will assess what is "good" for a society on the basis of subjective preferences and subjectively selected metrics. Most of the Christians on this site believe "alignment with the word of god" is the best metric, so they will assess the modern movement to accept same-sex intimacy as "bad for society." I do not find that to be a good metric and prefer to assess the society in terms of equitable treatment of all under the law and acceptance of people even if they are different, so I welcome the shift. Some use the metric "the health of the economy" to determine what is "good for society" so they hate any efforts to regulate that will negatively impact the economy. I don't place money/economy above all and am content with modest growth if it means we can continue to push forward with ecological and climate-related initiatives, and ensure that future generations will have a healthy environment and planet, because I believe those are in the long-term best interests of our society.
The moral prohibition against random killing (murder is a poor choice because it self-defines as bad) and theft is not objectively for the good of society - it is for the good for a society that values life and personal property, respectively. If a society does not, then these things will not be perceived as "good." A society comprised of individuals who value money above life might disagree with your prohibition against killing. A society that does not have the concept of personal property will not have a prohibition against theft. A society that see power, virulence, or honor as demonstrated by successful theft will not have your prohibition against theft (see the concept of "counting coup" among Native Americans, which includes this concept related to theft as well as other "acts of bravery").
You cannot find a "good" for society that is "objectively" good. It is good TO someone based on someone's selected metric. You are trying to create an absolute/objective "good" where such a thing cannot exist. You are looking from the perspective of your OWN personal preferences, and declaring them to be "objectively good." It doesn't work that way.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment