Atheism And Moral Progress

[seer]

The law can change overnight. Attitudes don't.

And 40 years is about 2 generations.

That is not exactly true either - polling suggests that acceptance of gay marriage completely changed in about 15 years...

[Stoic]

Look at gay rights and gay marriage - within 40 years...

The law can change overnight. Attitudes don't.

And 40 years is about 2 generations.

[seer]

The moral values of a society do not change overnight, and that is what the discussion was about.

It's conceivable that an individual's morals could change overnight. He might have a brilliant flash of insight that completely changes how he looks at morality, or a traumatic experience might move him in the opposite direction. In either case, morality is not equivalent to "mere abstractions of passing taste and fashion."

Look at gay rights and gay marriage - within 40 years...

[Stoic]

That isn't exactly true is it.

The moral values of a society do not change overnight, and that is what the discussion was about.

It's conceivable that an individual's morals could change overnight. He might have a brilliant flash of insight that completely changes how he looks at morality, or a traumatic experience might move him in the opposite direction. In either case, morality is not equivalent to "mere abstractions of passing taste and fashion."

[seer]

Morals don't change overnight; it takes generations.

That isn't exactly true is it.

[Stoic]

Give a definition of 'ad hominem', and show exactly where you think I did that.

An ad hominem argument is an argument directed against a person, rather than the position he is maintaining.

I argued that (a) Tassman's behaviour is inconsistent with his stated position on morality (ergo his position is false, since he himself doesn't or can't live it out);

You claimed it, but you did not argue it, at least not very succinctly.

You did say, "Why do you waste your, and more importantly our, time, spouting off about things that your own viewpoint insists are mere abstractions of passing taste and fashion?"

But you didn't back up your claim that his viewpoint insists that morals "are mere abstractions of passing taste and fashion." I'd say this is a straw man.

Morals don't change overnight; it takes generations.

(b) gave an example of this pattern of self-contradiction in a related area of philosophy; (c) pointed out that someone who repeatedly contradicts themselves is likely not the most rational (hence their positions should be regarded with some skepticism)

This is where you fell into an ad hominem argument. You are arguing against the person, rather than his position. Even if your argument was correct, that would not make his position wrong. That's why it is considered a fallacy.

[MaxVel]

Go learn what 'ad hominem' means. It was obviously ad hominem.

Give a definition of 'ad hominem', and show exactly where you think I did that.



I argued that (a) Tassman's behaviour is inconsistent with his stated position on morality (ergo his position is false, since he himself doesn't or can't live it out); (b) gave an example of this pattern of self-contradiction in a related area of philosophy; (c) pointed out that someone who repeatedly contradicts themselves is likely not the most rational (hence their positions should be regarded with some skepticism)

All of the above relates to the question at hand - the precise nature of morality and moral values, and whether Tassman's beliefs on the matter are plausible or true.

An ad hominem would be something like if I had said that Tassman was 'a typical Aussie criminal type' and therefore his argument was false.

[seer]

Our morality is based on biology and natural selection and has the instinctive goal of survival. It varies to a degree from culture to culture over time as is clearly demonstrable throughout human history – including that of the Christian West.

I actually I don't see what biology has to do with morality. Biology does not care about ethics. When one chimp kills another chimp do we call that a moral wrong? All other species seem to survive just fine without inventing the legal and moral fictions we do. And biology has no goal, not even our survival.

[Tassman]

Again Jim, whose reason? Whose goals? The Maoist's, the Stalinist's? The Hutu's?

Our morality is based on biology and natural selection and has the instinctive goal of survival. It varies to a degree from culture to culture over time as is clearly demonstrable throughout human history – including that of the Christian West.

[Electric Skeptic]

Not an ad hominem.

Go learn what 'ad hominem' means. It was obviously ad hominem.

[seer]

Again, morals are not based upon passing tastes or fashion, they are based upon reason..

Again Jim, whose reason? Whose goals? The Maoist's, the Stalinist's? The Hutu's?

[MaxVel]

Morals are reason based, which means that they may or may not be determined by the circumstances of the times. Murder and theft for instance would always be immoral because being murdered or robbed is never in the best intersts of any man, nor are they in the best interests of society as a whole. Those would be absolutes, not because they are divine law, an existing objective standard, but because they are reason based and by common sense understood.

But we can think of situations where such actions would be beneficial to a society, such as one being invaded or subjugated by another group; or a smaller society within a larger one. It might be to their advantage to steal, say, from the wealthier and larger group.



[quote=JimL] They don't change like "fashion in clothing". Sometimes morals are based on the times and are also illogical[/quote=JimL]

You're contradicting yourself here, since you began by claiming that "Morals are reason based, ..."

such as the moral to "not covet your neighbors slave, his ox or his mule". Covetting is normal and doesn't harm anyone, which is where the moral against theft comes in. If covetting is a sin, then I'm afraid you're all going to the bad place.

What exactly is meant by the Hebrew word(s) which has been translated as 'covet' in your (unsourced) Bible quote?
Note that this moral injunction clearly was moral by Tassman's standards, since the culture which had it (Jewish) survives today, many thousands of years later. Ergo, by Tassman's standard, that was not 'illogical', since it promoted the survival of the society.

Again, morals are not based upon passing tastes or fashion,

Never said they were.

they are based upon reason.

Or they can be, apparently, illogical, as well.

No contradiction. Morals are meaningful and true if they are based upon right reason. If a moral serves the best interests of human beings and human society then that gives it its meaning and its truth.

It is a contradiction if Tassman wants to argue both that 'Morals are good if they enhance the survival of a society' and 'This moral value, that this society had back then, is wrong', when that society survived and did very well.

[MaxVel]

No equivocation. Both the US and Australia - and many other countries - were colonized by the UK, which has long classified itself as Christian.

Which is precisely the point of your equivocation. Either you mean 'Christian' solely in the sense of 'a culture with a strong christian background, and institutions that reflect that (such as hospitals, universities, church-run orphanages and the like); in which case your point has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of Christianity;

or you mean 'Christian' in the sense of 'an active follower of the teachings and practice of Jesus Christ', in which case it's abundantly evident that colonial misdeeds are not the kind of thing that Jesus would ever have endorsed or wished His followers to do.

Not to mention the cultural carnage of the Conquistadors who, apart from the looting, specifically set out to convert the locals via their missionaries. The point is that morals evolve and vary from culture to culture over time and this is reflected by the Christian Church.

So, basically, your moral judgments are irrelevant, since whatever people did at the time was right for them, then.

[MaxVel]

Ad hominem does not an argument make.

Not an ad hominem.

[Tassman]

Equivocation; and broad brush.

No equivocation. Both the US and Australia - and many other countries - were colonized by the UK, which has long classified itself as Christian. Not to mention the cultural carnage of the Conquistadors who, apart from the looting, specifically set out to convert the locals via their missionaries. The point is that morals evolve and vary from culture to culture over time and this is reflected by the Christian Church.