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
-
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostYou might be right. I don't know. Think about truth-telling, though. There's an inherent logic to it. Even a liar depends on the assumption that most people tell the truth. Rational exchange of ideas wouldn;t be possible without this foundational assumption. So the actual moral truth : "One ought to tell the truth, all else being equal" can exist only in a mind, but the underlying rationale lies deeper, in the nature of discourse. But this may apply only to certain kinds of moral truths and not others.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 Jim B. View PostMorality is the idea that there are things that rational beings ought to do. Things that are implicit in the nature of the rational will. You don't need an authority figure to make something right or wrong, imo. It's inherent in the nature of the act itself.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostIf it depends on an authority, what is the basis on which the authority sets his standard? Do we revert to Divine Command Theory? You might say God IS the standard, that His character is the standard, but the question remains: How does God add to the goodness of good acts? I don't claim to know the answer. It's something i've wrestled with for a while.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThat makes no sense at all. If there were a universal moral standard without a God, it would be a universal moral standard even if it weren't universally recognized. Just as there can be truths about the physical world that people can be wrong about.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThat makes no sense at all. If there were a universal moral standard without a God, it would be a universal moral standard even if it weren't universally recognized. Just as there can be truths about the physical world that people can be wrong about.
Comment
-
-
That makes no sense, the laws of logic would be universal whether we understood or recognized them or not.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 Jim B. View PostYou might be right. I don't know. Think about truth-telling, though. There's an inherent logic to it. Even a liar depends on the assumption that most people tell the truth. Rational exchange of ideas wouldn't be possible without this foundational assumption. So the actual moral truth : "One ought to tell the truth, all else being equal" can exist only in a mind, but the underlying rationale lies deeper, in the nature of discourse. But this may apply only to certain kinds of moral truths and not others.
First, I do not believe 'most people' necessarily tell the truth. Personal views of 'truth' are too subjective. Second, the concept of 'moral truth' are an oxymoron.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostCan't there be a universal moral standard without God though?
No known observed 'universal standard of morals' is known to exist. The natural universal basis of everything is ultimately the Laws of Nature.Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-29-2019, 10:01 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYes it is deeper, it depends on one's ethical goals (which is also mind dependent). If lying or deceit helped your clan or tribe to gain advantage over a competing clan or tribe then it may be quite rational to use deceit in such a situation. We used such tactics to great effect during WW2.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThat sounds like some version of utilitarianism. I'm arguing for moral objectivism, not to be confused with moral absolutism. I think that there are objective moral principles, like truth-telling that even God has to acknowledge. God does not make or decree that lying is wrong. I don't believe in Divine Command Theory.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThat sounds like some version of utilitarianism. I'm arguing for moral objectivism, not to be confused with moral absolutism. I think that there are objective moral principles, like truth-telling that even God has to acknowledge. God does not make or decree that lying is wrong. I don't believe in Divine Command Theory.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 Chrawnus View PostI don't think that's true at all. Right and wrong implies that there's an obligation to act in accordance with what is "right", and to refrain from acts that are "wrong", but where does this obligation come from? It's certainly not from "the nature of the act itself". I don't see how it's possible to derive any moral obligations by simply analysing what is "inherent in the nature of the act itself".
Good would simply be defined as that which is in accordance with God's will (and His will would be dependent on His nature). There would be no "intermediate explanation" that explains how "God add to the goodness of good acts", but rather, the basic definition of what good is would be the aforementioned definition. If there were a need to explain why goodness is dependent on God's nature then that explanation would in itself be a standard outside of God by which goodness was judged, and so goodness wouldn't be derived solely from the nature of God.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWhat would you suggest a universal moral standard without a god would be based on? Inother words, what would make a thing moral or immoral without a god?
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
643 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment