Atheism And Moral Progress

[JimL]

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

Common sense seer, common sense. I know that it is in your best interests that you not be murdered or robbed, that it is in the best interests of all men that they not be murdered or robbed, and all men means the entire community, the society, so it is in the best interests of the human community that our morals provide for us a society wherein those interests are enforced. Your argument seems to say, no, none of that matters, the only reason a thing is right or wrong is because a god says so, and he says so for no particular reason.

[JimL]

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

Please no!

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

No, it is like saying, "red is not allowed here."

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."

That's a contradiction though. If a person has personal property, like all people do, no matter what society, then they obviously value it as personal property. I don't think that you can actually thinik of any society where people have nothing of their own that they value.

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.

I'm not seeing the logic there carp. I'm not saying "murder not being murder, would benefit society, I'm saying "murder not be allowed, or in other words, murder being understood as immoral and illegal, would benefit society. I think that's obvious.

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

Of course they make sense carp, they are simple questions. Understanding that the allowance of such behaviors would be detrimental to society as a whole is to understand that, conversely their being understood to be immoral and illegal is a benefit to society.

[seer]

Common sense seer, common sense. I know that it is in your best interests that you not be murdered or robbed, that it is in the best interests of all men that they not be murdered or robbed, and all men means the entire community, the society, so it is in the best interests of the human community that our morals provide for us a society wherein those interests are enforced. Your argument seems to say, no, none of that matters, the only reason a thing is right or wrong is because a god says so, and he says so for no particular reason.

Jim I have no problem with common sense, but again that is just our say so. You can't escape it. God's say so has a reason, His reason; a peaceful, civil society of genuine brotherhood.

[Sparko]

Common sense seer, common sense. I know that it is in your best interests that you not be murdered or robbed, that it is in the best interests of all men that they not be murdered or robbed, and all men means the entire community, the society, so it is in the best interests of the human community that our morals provide for us a society wherein those interests are enforced. Your argument seems to say, no, none of that matters, the only reason a thing is right or wrong is because a god says so, and he says so for no particular reason.

You still haven't even defined what "best" is and how anyone can judge what is "best" for society. Does it just mean "help a particular society survive?" or does it mean "make people in that society happier" or "whatever JimL decides it means?"

And what happens when what is best for one society is bad for another?

[seer]

You still haven't even defined what "best" is and how anyone can judge what is "best" for society. Does it just mean "help a particular society survive?" or does it mean "make people in that society happier" or "whatever JimL decides it means?"

And what happens when what is best for one society is bad for another?

Obviously Jim's best includes killing millions of our unborn.

[Sparko]

Please no!



No, it is like saying, "red is not allowed here."



That's a contradiction though. If a person has personal property, like all people do, no matter what society, then they obviously value it as personal property. I don't think that you can actually thinik of any society where people have nothing of their own that they value.



I'm not seeing the logic there carp. I'm not saying "murder not being murder, would benefit society, I'm saying "murder not be allowed, or in other words, murder being understood as immoral and illegal, would benefit society. I think that's obvious.



Of course they make sense carp, they are simple questions. Understanding that the allowance of such behaviors would be detrimental to society as a whole is to understand that, conversely their being understood to be immoral and illegal is a benefit to society.

Jim if "murder" being immoral and illegal benefited a society, then it would no longer be illegal or immoral would it?

How about saying something like "Killing someone for personal gain" instead of "murder" which is already defined as immoral.

[carpedm9587]

Please no!

Unfortunately, yes. You just jumped on their "Carpe is a handwaver and dancer" bandwagon.

No, it is like saying, "red is not allowed here."

For the reasons cited in my previous posts, this is not correct.

That's a contradiction though. If a person has personal property, like all people do, no matter what society, then they obviously value it as personal property. I don't think that you can actually thinik of any society where people have nothing of their own that they value.

For those of us steeped in the western culture of "personal property" it is a difficult notion to grasp. But such cultures have indeed existed and continue to exist. Granted, they are considered "primitive" cultures, but they exist. And even within our western society, small enclaves have formed around the idea of "collective ownership," where no individual owns anything; all is held by the collective for anyone to use. In such cultures and enclaves, the notion of "theft" disappears - because you cannot steal when there is no such thing as "personal property."

I'm not seeing the logic there carp. I'm not saying "murder not being murder, would benefit society, I'm saying "murder not be allowed, or in other words, murder being understood as immoral and illegal, would benefit society. I think that's obvious.

I suggest you look up the definition of "murder." Perhaps that will help you understand.

Of course they make sense carp, they are simple questions. Understanding that the allowance of such behaviors would be detrimental to society as a whole is to understand that, conversely their being understood to be immoral and illegal is a benefit to society.

I don't know how to help you understand this, Jim. I have explained it as best I can. "Murder is wrong" is a tautology because "Murder" is defined as "wrongful (or illicit) killing." So if you take the statement "murder is wrong" and substitute the definition for the word, you get "wrongful (or illicit) killing is wrong." Obviously, wrongful killing is wrong. That is a tautology. It is always true. It's like saying "red is red" or "heavy things are heavy." There is no way for "wrongful killing" to ever be "right."

This is the hole in the examples you have chosen.

[Tassman]

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?

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...ewish-thought/

Abortion is totally legal in Israel.

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.

Come now. The Evangelical view of abortion is not that of the Jews. Or even of Evangelicals until recently.

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,

Nope, not false...at least not in the sense that Evangelicals nowadays regard a fetus, i.e. as a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. Again, abortion is totally legal in Israel.

[Sparko]

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...ewish-thought/

Abortion is totally legal in Israel.

so? That has nothing to do with the bible or what the Jews believed thousands of years ago.



From your own source:



So guess what? Your own source says that Jewish law forbids abortion.

[JimL]

Jim I have no problem with common sense, but again that is just our say so. You can't escape it. God's say so has a reason, His reason; a peaceful, civil society of genuine brotherhood.

If you understand that there are underlying reasons for morality, then you should also understand that there is no need of a god in order that we reach those reasoned conclusions all on our own.

[JimL]

Unfortunately, yes. You just jumped on their "Carpe is a handwaver and dancer" bandwagon.



For the reasons cited in my previous posts, this is not correct.



For those of us steeped in the western culture of "personal property" it is a difficult notion to grasp. But such cultures have indeed existed and continue to exist. Granted, they are considered "primitive" cultures, but they exist. And even within our western society, small enclaves have formed around the idea of "collective ownership," where no individual owns anything; all is held by the collective for anyone to use. In such cultures and enclaves, the notion of "theft" disappears - because you cannot steal when there is no such thing as "personal property."



I suggest you look up the definition of "murder." Perhaps that will help you understand.



I don't know how to help you understand this, Jim. I have explained it as best I can. "Murder is wrong" is a tautology because "Murder" is defined as "wrongful (or illicit) killing." So if you take the statement "murder is wrong" and substitute the definition for the word, you get "wrongful (or illicit) killing is wrong." Obviously, wrongful killing is wrong. That is a tautology. It is always true. It's like saying "red is red" or "heavy things are heavy." There is no way for "wrongful killing" to ever be "right."

This is the hole in the examples you have chosen.

Language belongs to us carpe, and though it would be illogical or unreasonable, we could just as easily make no determination as to the morality of murder at all. That's the point I think you are confusing. Murder isn't wrong because it's wrong, and I'm not saying that murder is wrong because its wrong, I'm saying that murder is wrong because by reason we have determined it to be wrong, or to be in contradiction to our own best interests as a society.

[JimL]

Jim if "murder" being immoral and illegal benefited a society, then it would no longer be illegal or immoral would it?

I'm assuming you mispoke here, or miswrote, but that, afaict, makes no sense at all.
How about saying something like "Killing someone for personal gain" instead of "murder" which is already defined as immoral.[/QUOTE]

You're just picking nits. Some people killed/murdered for no reason at all.

[Sparko]

I'm assuming you mispoke here, or miswrote, but that, afaict, makes no sense at all.

How about saying something like "Killing someone for personal gain" instead of "murder" which is already defined as immoral.

You're just picking nits. Some people killed/murdered for no reason at all.

Murder is more than just killing. It is illegal and immoral killing. So like carp said, so when you propose a situation where "murder isn't immoral" you are stating a contradiction. You are saying "where immoral killing isn't immoral" - That is why he keeps arguing with you. Use a term for killing that doesn't already have "immoral or illegal" built into the very name.

[JimL]

Murder is more than just killing. It is illegal and immoral killing. So like carp said, so when you propose a situation where "murder isn't immoral" you are stating a contradiction. You are saying "where immoral killing isn't immoral" - That is why he keeps arguing with you. Use a term for killing that doesn't already have "immoral or illegal" built into the very name.

All behaviors that we have defined to be immoral have immoral built into them already. We defined them as such because we recognize them to be detrimental to society and therefore detrimental to the lives of the members thereof, not because "god said so."

[seer]

If you understand that there are underlying reasons for morality, then you should also understand that there is no need of a god in order that we reach those reasoned conclusions all on our own.

There are no underlying reasons for morality Jim that don't fully rely on someone's say so.