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 Stoic View Post
That's just optimism on my part. I can certainly imagine things getting better (from my subjective point of view). But you could be right, and things might get worse from here.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 seer View PostIs it really just your subjective view? Don't you really believe in universal moral truths? Or hope for them?
I suppose it might make me feel better to know that the person who disagrees with me about moral matters is objectively wrong, rather than someone who holds a minority opinion. But how do I know that he's the one who is wrong, and not me? It still comes down to the fact that one of us holds the minority opinion, as far as I can tell.
Of course, universal moral truths would be useful for someone who is trying to convince people that there is a God, since they would be hard to explain naturally. But I'm not interested in convincing anyone there is a God.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
I'm not sure exactly what advantage there would be in having universal moral truths, over very strongly held opinions. If there are universal moral truths, it's clearly not enough to keep people from disagreeing about what is right and what is wrong.
I suppose it might make me feel better to know that the person who disagrees with me about moral matters is objectively wrong, rather than someone who holds a minority opinion. But how do I know that he's the one who is wrong, and not me? It still comes down to the fact that one of us holds the minority opinion, as far as I can tell.
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 seer View PostIt would mean that there is an objective moral goal to move towards, a right way ethically for humans to be,
and that our intuitive belief in absolute right and wrong is not merely a useful fiction.
When you said we are not finished yet I have trouble believing that you were merely stating a preference - like a preference for ice cream.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
Except that survival, like with chimps, includes stronger tribes killing weaker tribes and taking their territories and stuff.
America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostIt would mean that there is an objective moral goal to move towards, a right way ethically for humans to be, and that our intuitive belief in absolute right and wrong is not merely a useful fiction. When you said we are not finished yet I have trouble believing that you were merely stating a preference - like a preference for ice cream.
America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View PostWhich doesn't change anything he said. You've surely heard of the term "a just war". We just manage to tell ourselves that all wars we are involved in are just (i.e., moral).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 Electric Skeptic View PostIf there is an objective/absolute morality (and I'm not saying you've claimed/suggested there is), how would/could we ever know what it is? I don't believe we could, which is why we have (at least effectively) a subjective morality. For all I know, your moral views (whatever they are) might be the objective, absolutely correct ones, and any moral views that disagree with yours are objectively wrong. But how could we ever know? How could you ever demonstrate it?
Blessings,
Lee
"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
Except that survival, like with chimps, includes stronger tribes killing weaker tribes and taking their territories and stuff.
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
The point is, if there are not universal moral truths then what wars we call moral or not is immaterial, all moral considerations are no more than legal or moral fictions. Nice bed time stories we tell ourselves.
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post
Indeed. Tribal warfare has been a common feature of human history also - including among Judeo/Christians - only with bigger and better weapons because we are cleverer. . .
They are more than “legal or moral fictions”. Communal standards of acceptable behavior are necessary, because they lend themselves to the survival of intelligent communal animals such as us.
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 seer View PostBut you can't call these things immoral.
When chimps do this to each other do you call that immoral?
Of course they are fictions, there is no morality in biology except what we make up.
For example, logic alone won't get you to the conclusion that pleasure is better than pain, or that living is better than dying, But if you start out with these (and other) values, which the vast majority of us share because of our common biology, you can work out rules that help most of us achieve these values, at relatively minor cost. The cost, of course, is having to obey these rules ourselves, and being willing to help enforce them. Refining these rules so that they achieve the maximum value for the most people, at the least overall cost, so that as many people as possible will be willing to accept them, is an ongoing process.
A moral agent is someone who understands the current set of rules in his society, and the consequences of violating them, and is able to choose whether or not to follow them.
(If you like, this is all my opinion, and you are not bound to agree with it. What matters if whether you are willing to accept the rules of your society, or prefer to accept the consequences of not following them.)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View PostWe can and do.
No, chimps are not members of our society, and would not understand our moral rules, or the consequences of not following them.
We make up morals based on our values, many of which are determined by biology.
For example, logic alone won't get you to the conclusion that pleasure is better than pain, or that living is better than dying, But if you start out with these (and other) values, which the vast majority of us share because of our common biology, you can work out rules that help most of us achieve these values, at relatively minor cost. The cost, of course, is having to obey these rules ourselves, and being willing to help enforce them. Refining these rules so that they achieve the maximum value for the most people, at the least overall cost, so that as many people as possible will be willing to accept them, is an ongoing process.
A moral agent is someone who understands the current set of rules in his society, and the consequences of violating them, and is able to choose whether or not to follow them.
(If you like, this is all my opinion, and you are not bound to agree with it. What matters if whether you are willing to accept the rules of your society, or prefer to accept the consequences of not following them.)
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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
161 responses
514 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
Yesterday, 05:44 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
|
88 responses
354 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-01-2024, 09:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
133 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment