Atheism And Moral Progress

[Tassman]

Actually, that WAS in response to your post.. And it was certainly no epiphany. I've held these views for some time now.



I've not taken issue with any of these points. I've stated them myself several times. My post merely fleshed out a bit of the relationship between morality and sentience.

Sorry about that. Sometimes you convey the impression of 'setting people right'.

[Tassman]

So it benefits society to kill millions of our own unborn children. Got it...

Fetuses were bot viewed as "children" throughout most of the history of the Judeo/Christian religion. And it only became an issue among Evangelicals relatively recently... primarily, it seems, as a political weapon..

[carpedm9587]

Sorry about that. Sometimes you convey the impression of 'setting people right'.

I argue my case/position based on the facts I find. When I disagree with someone, I say so. Why is that any more "setting people right" than what anyone else around here does...?

[JimL]

There certainly is no need for a god for there to be "morality." As for "morals having objective existence," I am not sure what this means. That sentient beings moralize is clearly objectively true. But your language seems to suggest that you think there is an objective moral code to which all of us are attempting (or should be attempting) to align. I would disagree that such a thing exists. There are communal moral codes, but those are nothing more than the aggregate of individual moral codes - they are not "moral absolutes" in the sense theists and so-called "moral realists" use the term.

Would you say that there is a legitimate argument to be made that the moral against murder, or the moral against theft, are not in the best interests of human society?

[Tassman]

So it benefits society to kill millions of our own unborn children. Got it...

[seer]

How is abortion not selfish since in most cases it is done for mere convenience? And how is killing our own offspring conducive to our general survival? And you don't have to be religious to be against abortion:

http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secu...inst-abortion/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Pro-Life

[Sparko]

Fetuses were bot viewed as "children" throughout most of the history of the Judeo/Christian religion. And it only became an issue among Evangelicals relatively recently... primarily, it seems, as a political weapon..

The bible OT and New describe a fetus as a child several times. And the OT goes back at least 4,000 years.

[carpedm9587]

Would you say that there is a legitimate argument to be made that the moral against murder, or the moral against theft, are not in the best interests of human society?

So, first of all, "murder is wrong" is a tautology. It is true by definition, because the definition of "murder" is a "wrongful or illicit killing." So "murder is wrong" translates to "wrongful killing is wrong," which is always true, by definition. But it's not actually saying anything. It's like saying "red is red" or "heavy loads are heavy."

As for theft, you are approaching this in a manner I don't think is useful or appropriate. The question is not "is theft ever in the best interests of society." The question is "is there any society in which theft is not a "wrong?" The answer is yes. In a society where all property is held communally, the concept of theft does not exist. Indeed, there are primitive tribes whose language lacks the word for theft altogether, because the concept simply makes no sense to them.

Your "best interests" approach is not functional, Jim, because you will always end up at "best interests to whom?" At the end of the day, it is a specific person making that evaluation. That is what makes morality 100% subjective/relative. Moral absolutes don't exist. People simply confuse widely held moral principals with "absolutes" - or attribute these principles to a god (which they cannot show to exist) to lend them authority. There is a far simpler explanation for the source of widely, commonly held moral norms.

[JimL]

So, first of all, "murder is wrong" is a tautology. It is true by definition, because the definition of "murder" is a "wrongful or illicit killing." So "murder is wrong" translates to "wrongful killing is wrong," which is always true, by definition. But it's not actually saying anything. It's like saying "red is red" or "heavy loads are heavy."

As for theft, you are approaching this in a manner I don't think is useful or appropriate. The question is not "is theft ever in the best interests of society." The question is "is there any society in which theft is not a "wrong?" The answer is yes. In a society where all property is held communally, the concept of theft does not exist. Indeed, there are primitive tribes whose language lacks the word for theft altogether, because the concept simply makes no sense to them.

Your "best interests" approach is not functional, Jim, because you will always end up at "best interests to whom?" At the end of the day, it is a specific person making that evaluation. That is what makes morality 100% subjective/relative. Moral absolutes don't exist. People simply confuse widely held moral principals with "absolutes" - or attribute these principles to a god (which they cannot show to exist) to lend them authority. There is a far simpler explanation for the source of widely, commonly held moral norms.

I don't think you answered the question Carp. More like you danced around it. Murder can either be seen as an immoral act or not, theft can either be seen as either an immoral act or not, and those behaviors can be treated as such within any society. So the question was do you believe that there is a legitimate argument that the moral against murder is not in the best interests of society. Try to focus on this American society instead of trying to imagine other types of societies where you think the same logic doesn't hold. If murder was allowed, if theft were allowed, if rape were allowed, i.e., if those behaviors were not seen as being immoral acts and therefore illegal acts, do you think you could make a legitimate argument that would support the allowance of such behaviors to be in the best interests of this society.

[Tassman]

The bible OT and New describe a fetus as a child several times. And the OT goes back at least 4,000 years.

[Tassman]

How is abortion not selfish since in most cases it is done for mere convenience? And how is killing our own offspring conducive to our general survival?

I'll leave the judgementalism to you Evangelicals. There are many good reason why an abortion is preferable, including the potential negative physical or psychological impact on the woman's life, financial inability to care for a child, or relationship problems and the unwillingness to be a single mother. Regardless, it is the woman's right to choose and not up to outsiders to impose their personal views on the woman's life. .

And you don't have to be religious to be against abortion:

But mostly you do.

[seer]

I'll leave the judgementalism to you Evangelicals. There are many good reason why an abortion is preferable, including the potential negative physical or psychological impact on the woman's life, financial inability to care for a child, or relationship problems and the unwillingness to be a single mother. Regardless, it is the woman's right to choose and not up to outsiders to impose their personal views on the woman's life.

So you justify violating the most central necessaity of human survival, procreation, for subjective considerations.

[seer]

...do you think you could make a legitimate argument that would support the allowance of such behaviors to be in the best interests of this society.

Again Jim, why is the best interest of society a moral good - apart from our say so?

[Sparko]

Why would they have a "figure of speech" that called an unborn human being a "child" or "baby" if that wasn't what they thought it was? How would it even get to be a figure of speech, Tassman? It even describes Jesus and John in the womb reacting to each other. It describes God having plans for someone even before they were born and watching over them. It describes the punishment if someone harms a woman's unborn baby.

Your idiotic claim that the Jews didn't believe the baby was a baby before it was born has been shown to be false over and over, yet every single time the topic comes up, you simply repeat yourself. Do you actually think that people don't remember the last time you were proven wrong, or the time before that?

[carpedm9587]

I don't think you answered the question Carp. More like you danced around it.

You'll to get in line behind Sparko and Rogue...

Murder can either be seen as an immoral act or not,

No - it can't. This is like saying, "red can be red or not red." See my previous post.

theft can either be seen as either an immoral act or not,

It can be seen as moral - or it can simply not apply or not exist. A person will either see "personal property" as a value to be protected, in which case Theft will be seen as immoral, or they may NOT see personal property as a value to be protected, in which case the concept of theft simply doesn't exist. If I do not care about personal property, I am not going to see anyone taking something as "theft."

and those behaviors can be treated as such within any society. So the question was do you believe that there is a legitimate argument that the moral against murder is not in the best interests of society.

Your question cannot be answered as asked. As I noted, it's like asking, "do you think red not being red would benefit society." The question is nonsensical.

Try to focus on this American society instead of trying to imagine other types of societies where you think the same logic doesn't hold. If murder was allowed, if theft were allowed, if rape were allowed, i.e., if those behaviors were not seen as being immoral acts and therefore illegal acts, do you think you could make a legitimate argument that would support the allowance of such behaviors to be in the best interests of this society.

I cannot answer these questions, Jim. They don't make any sense.