Atheism And Moral Progress

[seer]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Probably the same point that you just made to Tass... Or that some cultures differ on that is socially acceptable behavior...

[Electric Skeptic]

Yes socially acceptable behavior like rounding up Jews...

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

[Electric Skeptic]

Moral beliefs “come down to” much more than this in that “personal preference” is shaped and modified by a large range of factors according to the society in which we live. As social animals we do not function in isolation (“no man is an island entire to himself – Donne). Hence morality, as practiced in actuality, “comes down” to socially acceptable behavior and this has evolved and varied from culture to culture over time.

I'd just like to add "in general" here. Obviously, some people do not view that "socially acceptable behaviour" as the definition of morality. I'm thinking of people who flout rules about theft, murder, rape, etc. Clearly, for example, Ted Bundy was completely uninterested in socially acceptable behaviour, particularly as a guide to his morality.

[seer]

Moral beliefs “come down to” much more than this in that “personal preference” is shaped and modified by a large range of factors according to the society in which we live. As social animals we do not function in isolation (“no man is an island entire to himself – Donne). Hence morality, as practiced in actuality, “comes down” to socially acceptable behavior and this has evolved and varied from culture to culture over time.

Yes socially acceptable behavior like rounding up Jews...

[Tassman]

What evidence? Moral beliefs come down to personal preference, nothing more. You already agreed with that.

Moral beliefs “come down to” much more than this in that “personal preference” is shaped and modified by a large range of factors according to the society in which we live. As social animals we do not function in isolation (“no man is an island entire to himself – Donne). Hence morality, as practiced in actuality, “comes down” to socially acceptable behavior and this has evolved and varied from culture to culture over time.

[JimL]

That's all non-normative descriptions.You might be investing axiology into moral concepts metaethically. But it's just sociological axiology. It's a good sociological or psychological description of individual and collective preferences that murder is deemed 'bad'. But 'bad' here is a non-moral descriptor. It semantically means an act within that subset of actions that contingently align with said descriptive preferences. Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Moral Naturalism doesn't ultimately go down this route.

Doesn't matter if my take on morality is the norm or not, what morals actually are is what's being discussed.

[mattbballman31]

That's just silliness, seer. Morals are not about ice cream or beauty, not about personal preferences, they are about what is in the best interests of human beings living together, aka human society. That means there are right and wrong answers even if morals are not themselves objective moral laws come down from heaven. For instance, the moral against murder serves the best interests of both individuals and of society as a whole and it needn't be a divine law in order to serve that purpose.

That's all non-normative descriptions. You might be investing axiology into moral concepts metaethically. But it's just sociological axiology. It's a good sociological or psychological description of individual and collective preferences that murder is deemed 'bad'. But 'bad' here is a non-moral descriptor. It semantically means an act within that subset of actions that contingently align with said descriptive preferences. Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Moral Naturalism doesn't ultimately go down this route.

[seer]

A very poor response. Whether or not what Carp says is correct can be determined by the evidence supporting his claim. Sadly, the same is not true of the bible.

What evidence? Moral beliefs come down to personal preference, nothing more. You already agreed with that.

[Electric Skeptic]

Carp says so...
How do you know Carp is correct?
Carp says so...
(repeat, ad infinitum)

A very poor response. Whether or not what Carp says is correct can be determined by the evidence supporting his claim. Sadly, the same is not true of the bible.

[seer]

- The bible says so!
- How do you know the bible is correct?
- The bible says so!
- (repeat, ad infinitum)

And then they complain about turtles...

Carp says so...
How do you know Carp is correct?
Carp says so...
(repeat, ad infinitum)

[Electric Skeptic]

I concede the point. Having checked multiple dictionaries now, murder is always defined in terms of legal systems. So it can be called "wrongful" only so far as it is "legally wrongful."

Of course, I think the Christians hereabouts will tell you that it transgresses the law of god, which makes it a moral issue (for them), since the heart of their moral framework is rooted in "what god wants."

I cannot disagree - but I will say that I would be a lot less skeptical about "what god wants" if it didn't so often turn out to be the same thing wanted by the person telling you what god wants.

[Electric Skeptic]

On this one, we might have to agree to disagree. However, it is not a serious issue - it is merely a grammatical disagreement. I think, if you ask around, you will find that most people would interpret "I don't believe you are wearing a white shirt" to mean "I believe you are not wearing a white shirt." Grammatically, either interpretation is possible. Note, however, that the only result from this is that using the statement will likely cause you and the person you are talking with to talk at cross purposes until your definition is clarified. It doesn't mean I disagree with your underlying point.

Okay.

Gracious of you, and unusual in this setting. Apologies around here are as rare as a smokeless day in northern California these days. You are a breath of fresh air!

I like to think that when I err, I admit it and apologise. Of course, everybody likes to think that of themselves :)

I would tend to agree. Some gods are logically non-functional. But that doesn't seem to stop the holders of those beliefs, and they will go to some amazing lengths to defend those beliefs.

Agreed again.

Technically true, but I think the preponderance of the evidence suggests that we created god(s) in our own image, or the image of some aspect of nature.

I think that's likely, but I'm not confident enough to move to strong atheism on the strength of it.

Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am
Cogito ergo existit aliquid: I think, therefore something exists

I am curious here. Why do you think that "something exists" is a better/more accurate conclusion than "I am"?

And then there is:


Cogito ergo spud: I think, therefore I yam!

My favourite (in my younger partying days, at least, is Bibo, ergo sum - I drink, therefore I am.

- The bible says so!
- How do you know the bible is correct?
- The bible says so!
- (repeat, ad infinitum)


And then they complain about turtles...

I've been on that merry-go-round once or twice..

Blasphemy!

There is no higher cookie than the chocolate chip.

[carpedm9587]

I disagree with the above as I have never seed 'murder' defined using the word 'wrong'. Murder is the illegal killing of a person. Whether that killing is right or wrong is irrelevant. Whether or not it is murder is solely a matter of legality. Certainly saying that 'murder' is a legally wrong act is redundant; it is defined by its illegality. But I don't find that with the idea that murder is wrong (or right) - that's no part of its definition.

I concede the point. Having checked multiple dictionaries now, murder is always defined in terms of legal systems. So it can be called "wrongful" only so far as it is "legally wrongful."

Of course, I think the Christians hereabouts will tell you that it transgresses the law of god, which makes it a moral issue (for them), since the heart of their moral framework is rooted in "what god wants."

[carpedm9587]

It's (one of the reasons) why I abandoned a forum in which I used to post and came here on another's recommendation, hoping for more meaningful discussion. Thus far I've found arguments in general to be of a much higher standard here.

Well, it makes sense to you - that's a start, at least.

I must disagree with your claim that

The statement "I don't believe you are wearing a white shirt," is ambiguous'

It neither says nor implies anything about me having made a claim at all. Certainly it's compatible with you having made a claim about the color of your shirt, but all it says is your first option above:

'You are wearing a white shirt' is not a belief I possess.

Similarly, going back to what this analogy for, "I don't believe in the existence of gods" says nothing more (or less) than that "'God(s) exist' is not a belief I have."

On this one, we might have to agree to disagree. However, it is not a serious issue - it is merely a grammatical disagreement. I think, if you ask around, you will find that most people would interpret "I don't believe you are wearing a white shirt" to mean "I believe you are not wearing a white shirt." Grammatically, either interpretation is possible. Note, however, that the only result from this is that using the statement will likely cause you and the person you are talking with to talk at cross purposes until your definition is clarified. It doesn't mean I disagree with your underlying point.

Sorry if I came across as patronising, then, since you are aware of the weak/strong positions. Reading your response, you are clearly more knowledgeable/experienced in this area than I incorrectly thought. My apologies.

Gracious of you, and unusual in this setting. Apologies around here are as rare as a smokeless day in northern California these days. You are a breath of fresh air!

As far as proofs for the nonexistence of a god go, I do not know of one that would do for all gods. However, I believe the problem of suffering to be a proof of the non-existence of an omnimax god.

I would tend to agree. Some gods are logically non-functional. But that doesn't seem to stop the holders of those beliefs, and they will go to some amazing lengths to defend those beliefs.

I am tempted to agree but the idea of an indifferent god - one who creates and then walks away - is, IMO, not able to be evidenced against. The only evidence against such a being is the absence of evidence for it.

Technically true, but I think the preponderance of the evidence suggests that we created god(s) in our own image, or the image of some aspect of nature.

My Latin is not that good - could you translate? Google was sadly unsatisfying here.

Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am
Cogito ergo existit aliquid: I think, therefore something exists

And then there is:

Cogito ergo spud: I think, therefore I yam!

To which my response would be that as soon as you can evidence the existence of such a being, we can discuss it.

- The bible says so!
- How do you know the bible is correct?
- The bible says so!
- (repeat, ad infinitum)

And then they complain about turtles...

Thanks for the background.

You're crazy.

The cookies (chocolate chip, if I had my druthers) are the good stuff.

Blasphemy!

[Electric Skeptic]

Unfortunately the choice to try and stop using moral language out of a desire to prevent confusion, essentially cedes the 'moral high ground' to the group of religious zealots who are using the terms wrongly. This can have serious negative consequences if we are talking about political issues concerned with human rights etc. Swing voters can be swayed by moral terminology, so if one side is yelling that something is morally wrong at the top of their voices, and the other giving a wishy-washy explanation of "well I'm not going to argue against the claim that the thing is morally wrong because I don't want to use moral terminology, but I'm supportive of the thing for a bunch of reasons having to do with it reducing harm done to people", then public sentiment is strongly in danger of siding with the clearer message that the thing is 'morally wrong' and this can have the effect of preventing basic human rights for oppressed minority groups etc. So, the use, or not, of moral language becomes not an intellectual philosophical choice that one makes for the purposes of having clearer discussions, but something with massive impacts on people's lives.

I would say in general that a key successful change in liberals' political strategies over the last 30 years has been this move from "I don't want to use moral terms in my arguments, I'm happy to cede the claim that conservatives are morally right, I just want to concentrate on laws that minimize harm and maximize freedom and human rights and happiness, morality aside" to a full-throated "The conservative position is morally wrong, because it harms people. The liberal position is morally right, because it improves people's lives in numerous ways." In some ways this seems to have been a generational shift. Or one could view it as the difference between 'liberals' and 'progressives', where progressives push for moral progress and are forthright about how they see politics connected to morality and why they see the conservative positions as immoral.

I can't disagree with anything you've said here.