If when we die....

[Elioenai26]

So you all are saying that what is morally right and wrong is self-evident within each human?

 

[Genersis]

So you all are saying that what is morally right and wrong is self-evident within each human?

Most decisions with a moral aspect are decided by the individual.
This does not devalue the decision in itself.

Flaws in a person's logic, empathy and religious beliefs all can devalue that person's morals.

A person that makes some of their moral decisions based on their religion doesn't make those decisions intrinsically superior. Or the person any more moral than those who don't.

 

[Elioenai26]

Most decisions with a moral aspect are decided by the individual.
This does not devalue the decision in itself.

Flaws in a person's logic, empathy and religious beliefs all can devalue that person's morals.

A person that makes some of their moral decisions based on their religion doesn't make those decisions intrinsically superior. Or the person any more moral than those who don't.

This is your opinion correct?

 

[Gadarene]

So you all are saying that what is morally right and wrong is self-evident within each human?

No, the morals themselves are not inherent.

But the moral basis is both (a) based on the properties common to human beings and (b) for all intents and purposes objectively observable.

 

[Gadarene]

This is your opinion correct?

Hardly that much worse than a claim that God's moral code is objective.

It is no less an opinion than someone else's - it is God's, and no less a subjective point of view merely because it is his view.

Although given that the claim that the Bible is divinely inspired and contains divinely inspired morality cannot be justified, Christians reading it are simply bringing the fallibility of its authors' opinion to the table - frequently presented through the prism of their own opinion of what Bible authors are saying!

So what Christians are presenting is an opinion, of an opinion, of an opinion.

 

[Elioenai26]

I guess the question that remains since we have all admitted to the idea of the existence of morals and various ethical systems is: which is the more preferable ethic or system or morality to claim adherence to?

 

[Skavau]

I guess the question that remains since we have all admitted to the idea of the existence of morals and various ethical systems is: which is the more preferable ethic or system or morality to claim adherence to?

The one that values personal liberty of all peoples.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But you have no hope after you die.

It won't inconvenience me in the slightest, since I won't exist.

You should'nt. According to you, there is nothing after death. That is my point.

I'm not certain what your point is for.

You judge yourself.

No, no, no, no, no. I was speaking of the law of causality. Perhaps this saying will help you grasp my point:

“Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”

You are reaffirming my point. According to you whatever happens to us after we die is a non-issue. All that matters is the here and now.

Wrong. What matters is our lives as a whole, not the immediate moment.

Christianity teaches that morality comes from God and therefore is not subjective but objective.

I believe that the standard of goodness is human well-being, which is objective. I'm not a moral subjectivist. Didn't you get that already?

I'm a virtue ethicist, which in meta-ethical terms is a form of ethical naturalism. There is an objective aspect to my ethics, since it is rooted in facts of human nature.

Do some who claim adherence to this worldview violate God's commands? Yes they do. But the commands nontheless still exist and make a demand on the adherent.

Great, and my ethical standard applies to me whether I like it or not.

Applicability is not the issue. The issue is this: If I believe that nothing is meaningful except the "here and now" and that there is no purpose in life other than to live it the way I want to, then no one can pass judgement on me for living the way I choose. That is all I am saying and I am sure you would agree!

No, I disagree 100%.

I don't believe that "there is no purpose in life other than to live it the way I want to", and I can very easily pass judgment on you.

Who are you to tell me what reality is?

I'm not telling you what reality is. I'm telling you my views on what reality is. Reality can take care of itself.

You must speak for yourself sir, and not for anyone else.

What makes you think that I was speaking for anyone else? If you can point out the words that led you to think this, I will try different wording.

You may decide to live by consulting "wise men" and looking at life from "different angles", you have the right to do so

It's not so much about having a right to do so, but having the ability and the need to do so. The point is that one can weed out false views of reality. Even though ethics isn't a hard science, it is possible to exclude a great number of poorly-crafted views. People's opinions regarding right and wrong are not all of equal quality.

but as a mere man who is nothing more, nor nothing less than I am, you cannot pass judgment on me for living according to way I see the world.

I couldn't care less about that, to be honest. It is cause and effect that will judge you, not I.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am sure many atheists do seek happiness by seeking to live a "virtuous life" whatever that may mean to him or her, this is not in dispute. Our dear friend Eudaimonist has made it clear that this is how he receives satisfaction.

Any satisfaction is only icing on the cake, not the cake itself. I don't view happiness in the Age of Enlightenment sense as a series of repeated pleasurable experiences. I have a eudaimonistic view of that concept, which isn't merely some mood or emotion, but is better rendered as objective well-being, self-actualization, or personal flourishing.

This is why I was willing to agree in a rough way to the complete package of "life, liberty, prosperity, and happiness", since the word happiness wasn't used all by itself, but with the addition of something clearly objective.

It also must be remembered that there is no shortage of infamous characters who have used atheism as their grounds for living hedonistic, lascivous lifestyles. Does the name Oscar Wilde, Jeffrey Dahmer, Michael Onfray, Ted Bundy ring a bell?

Who cares? Does Tomás de Torquemada ring a bell? How about Aztec human sacrifices... which were perpetrated by theists. Anyone can misuse anything. Anyone can be unwise. Anyone, theist or atheist, can rationalize destructive acts. That line of argument is, if you will excuse the phrase, a dead end.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

I guess the question that remains since we have all admitted to the idea of the existence of morals and various ethical systems is: which is the more preferable ethic or system or morality to claim adherence to?

How do you personally make this decision?

 

[quatona]

So you all are saying that what is morally right and wrong is self-evident within each human?

For the record: I am not saying this.
While abstract general prescriptions (like e.g. "avoid harming others unnecessarily") may be pretty much agreed on instinctively by almost everyone, it gets increasingly complicated the more we are to decide how such general prescriptions are carried out in a given situation or in detail.

As for your basic question ("Why even consinder anything but the immediate satisfaction of your momentary desires when you believe your existence is finite?"):
Personally, I consider this existence the pool we all are swimming in. I don´t like to swim in pee. Therefore I am not going to pee in the pool I´m swimming in.

 

[Elioenai26]

In summarizing the various points that I have been making in this thread, I will say this. As a human with the capacity to reason and make judgments on moral matters, you can adhere to whatever ethical or moral system you desire. You can choose to live a eudaimonistic life, or you can choose to live according to the consequentialistic moral ethic, or the nihilistic view, etc. etc. It is your choice. You can believe in a god that requires you to engage in "holy war" or a God that requires you to love your neighbor as yourself.

However, the moment you begin to impose your particular view upon someone else, you are making it an objective standard. You are making an appeal to someone on the basis that they understand what you are saying and you assume that they will see the validity behind the standard. If you see a man getting ready to rape a woman in a dark alley and you approach him and say: "Hey man! You should'nt do that. It is wrong!" You are expecting that man to understand why you are saying that it is wrong. You are expecting the man to respond with something like: "You know what, you are right. Raping this woman would cause her great emotional, physical, and mental pain. I should not do this."

You make your appeal based on the fact that the man can understand that is inherently wrong to rape someone. You are making this appeal to another person about another person, which makes it an appeal to an objective standard. As long as your view is held to yourself and yourself alone, it is subjective. The moment you prescribe it to someone other than yourself, you are making it objective. You are appealing to the fact that this man has a conscience (the inner voice that accuses or excuses one's actions), and hopefully, he will not carry out the atrocious act of rape. It has been said that the most dangerous man to himself and to others is the man whose conscience no longer convicts him of wrongdoing. Such a man is capable of anything. Not only that, but such a man will find grounds to excuse whatever he approves. I know this to be true because I lived as such a man for several years.

So it follows that in general, all people can be summed up under two very broad categories:

1. Nihilism which is most commonly presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

Or

2. The view that life is meaningful, purposeful and has some value. Subcategories of this would be any religious worldview, extropianism, any system of moral and or societal ethics, and of course some atheists. I say some because it depends on how one interprets what atheism is. There are varying degrees of differentiation and interpretation of what it means to be an atheist. Any atheist will tell you that there is no one set of specifics one must adhere to.


I gather from various posts here by atheists that the majority of you here do believe in some meaningful and purposeful quality of the life you are living. Therefore you would not fall under the first category, but the second.

It is also logical to conclude from the conversations within this thread that there are one of three possibilites that correspond to the world in which we live. They are:

1. Objective moral values do not exist and therefore no explanation need be given for them.

2. Objective moral values do exist and gods or a God need not be the source.

3. Objective moral values do exist and God is the source.

All of us fall under one and only of these three categories.

I gather that most of you, if you agree in the existence of objective values and standards, would adhere to the second category. Am I correct?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I gather that most of you, if you agree in the existence of objective values and standards, would adhere to the second category. Am I correct?

I don't much like your definition of objective moral values. I don't make the assumption that others have moral knowledge. They might not.

However, if you simply mean that objective moral values apply to others whether they know it or not, or understand those values or not, then sure, I believe in objective values. There are oughts that apply to people in virtue of their existence as human beings.

So sign me up for category #2.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

In summarizing the various points that I have been making in this thread, I will say this. As a human with the capacity to reason and make judgments on moral matters, you can adhere to whatever ethical or moral system you desire. You can choose to live a eudaimonistic life, or you can choose to live according to the consequentialistic moral ethic, or the nihilistic view, etc. etc. It is your choice. You can believe in a god that requires you to engage in "holy war" or a God that requires you to love your neighbor as yourself.

I don´t dare to say how much choice we really have in that, but otherwise ok so far.

However,

the moment you begin to impose your particular view upon someone else, you are making it an objective standard.

How does that follow?
There are two possibilities:
1. I am imposing my subjective standard on him (fully aware that it is just my subjective standard).
2. I am imposing my subjective standard on him (believing or/and claiming it is objective).
In any case, the fact that I am imposing my subjective standard on someone doesn´t render the standard objective. Or else we would have many different, contradictory objective standards (which is an oxymoron).

You are making an appeal to someone on the basis that they understand what you are saying and you assume that they will see the validity behind the standard.

Not really. I am hoping they will understand me and see aspects of their doing that they have so far not been aware of. Further I am hoping that they will regard these aspects relevant and significant. That´s just what I am hoping, though.

If you see a man getting ready to rape a woman in a dark alley and you approach him and say: "Hey man! You should'nt do that. It is wrong!"

That´s not what I would do, in the first place. So I can´t relate to your example, and your conclusions are not about me.

You make your appeal based on the fact that the man can understand that is inherently wrong to rape someone.

When I make an appeal to someone I never use "should" or "shouldn´t". I am not appealing to any inherence or objectivity.

You are making this appeal to another person about another person, which makes it an appeal to an objective standard.

Doesn´t follow - unless you are using a definition of "objective" that I am not familiar with.

As long as your view is held to yourself and yourself alone, it is subjective. The moment you prescribe it to someone other than yourself, you are making it objective.

No, that´s not the traditional meaning of "objective". Or else there would be contradicting objective standards en masse.

You are appealing to the fact that this man has a conscience (the inner voice that accuses or excuses one's actions), and hopefully, he will not carry out the atrocious act of rape.

When I make an appeal to people I appeal to the fact that they have a brain and needs.

So it follows that in general, all people can be summed up under two very broad categories:

1. Nihilism which is most commonly presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

Yes, I do agree that there is no objective meaning, purpose or intrinsic value. (It has been noted, though, that neither I nor the protagonists of existential nihilism used the term "objective" in the way you have used it above.)

Or

2. The view that life is meaningful, purposeful and has some value. Subcategories of this would be any religious worldview, extropianism, any system of moral and or societal ethics, and of course some atheists. I say some because it depends on how one interprets what atheism is. There are varying degrees of differentiation and interpretation of what it means to be an atheist. Any atheist will tell you that there is no one set of specifics one must adhere to.


I gather from various posts here by atheists that the majority of you here do believe in some meaningful and purposeful quality of the life you are living. Therefore you would not fall under the first category, but the second.

It is also logical to conclude from the conversations within this thread that there are one of three possibilites that correspond to the world in which we live. They are:

1. Objective moral values do not exist and therefore no explanation need be given for them.

Yes, something that doesn´t exist needs no explanation.

2. Objective moral values do exist and gods or a God need not be the source.

3. Objective moral values do exist and God is the source. [/quote]
I think you missed one option:

4. God exists, objective moral values exist, but God isn´t (or - even - can´t be) their source.

I gather that most of you, if you agree in the existence of objective values and standards, would adhere to the second category. Am I correct?

Can´t speak for "most of us". Personally, I belong in the category of those that "objective value" is a contradiction in terms.
However, if I accept your above definition of "objective" (i.e.: as soon as someone appeals to his subjective standard this standard becomes objective), I belong in the camp of those that surely believe that there are plenty of - partly contradicting - objective standards and values out there.

But before we move on, I suggest you give the clear definition of "objective" that you are basing your statements upon. This might spare us some misunderstandings.

 

[Skavau]

In summarizing the various points that I have been making in this thread, I will say this. As a human with the capacity to reason and make judgments on moral matters, you can adhere to whatever ethical or moral system you desire.

You'll be summarising your own points, will you?

Will you be updating your own arguments to mesh with the plethora of new information on morality provided to you by atheists?

You can choose to live a eudaimonistic life, or you can choose to live according to the consequentialistic moral ethic, or the nihilistic view, etc. etc. It is your choice. You can believe in a god that requires you to engage in "holy war" or a God that requires you to love your neighbor as yourself.

Yes, in a very literal sense. Though of course if you by self-declared reasons of piety attempt to harm others you better be prepared for society to return its appreciation.

However, the moment you begin to impose your particular view upon someone else, you are making it an objective standard.

No-one is "imposing" a view - we are arguing for them. The best example of any moral system is one that accept each and everyone else's own right to path out their own way in life. When you accept that common ground all else tends to follow.

You are making an appeal to someone on the basis that they understand what you are saying and you assume that they will see the validity behind the standard. If you see a man getting ready to rape a woman in a dark alley and you approach him and say: "Hey man! You should'nt do that. It is wrong!" You are expecting that man to understand why you are saying that it is wrong.

Yes, you are. Though equally if you found the same man in a dark alley getting ready to rape a woman you would be in the exact same situation. Simply saying "You shouldn't do that for it is against objective morality" is just as ineffective as anything I might say to a would-be rapist.

Discussion on morality with others presumes rationality of the other party. What exactly is your point?

You are expecting the man to respond with something like: "You know what, you are right. Raping this woman would cause her great emotional, physical, and mental pain. I should not do this."

No, but apparently you are.

What would you do in this hypothetical? If your own arguments are just as ineffectual (and they would be) - what is your point? That reasoned arguments on objective morality or subjective morality don't tend to work on a would-be rapist? Have a cookie.

You make your appeal based on the fact that the man can understand that is inherently wrong to rape someone. You are making this appeal to another person about another person, which makes it an appeal to an objective standard.

It is an asserted standard. Humanity, broadly has come to realise that raping other people is immoral. We have come to this conclusion because of the harm it does to others. It is a direct infringement on someone's person without their consent. If morality means anything it means what someone ought or ought not do with consideration towards others and by this simple definition (which I hope no-one will dispute) rape is wrong.

It is by way of definition, immoral. No moral system can justify it nor excuse it.

As long as your view is held to yourself and yourself alone, it is subjective. The moment you prescribe it to someone other than yourself, you are making it objective.

You are arguing semantics. You are effectively trying to have us all accept that morality is somehow objective by making it be defined as objective and from there you will without reason argue that means a God exists.

If you want to just insist that any moral assertion prescribed to another is somehow objective - knock yourself out. I consider the entire objective vs. subjective argument to be a giant red herring and completely meaningless anyway.

 

[KCfromNC]

You say you only care about what is true of reality. The reality of it is that in the end, according to you, there is nothing. No hope, no reward after death for having lived a virtuous life, no expectation of judgment. Nothingness and meaningless is the lot of all. For all die.

For you, living a "virtuous" life, (this must remain completely subjective and open to interpretation by each person by the way) brings you fulfillment. For others living a hedonistic lifestyle would be their choice.

Argument from consequences inbound in 3 ... 2 ... 1

 

[KCfromNC]

Why do some people want to believe atheists are moralless so badly?
Do they really wish that to be the case?

Convincing the flock that they'll turn into outlaw biker bank robbing rapists if they stop going to church keeps the collection plates full.

 

[KCfromNC]

My point exactly. Who determines what is reasonable?

People. Who else is there when it comes to morality?

 

[KCfromNC]

I guess the question that remains since we have all admitted to the idea of the existence of morals and various ethical systems is: which is the more preferable ethic or system or morality to claim adherence to?

Mine, obviously, otherwise I'd hold a different one.

 

[Elioenai26]

Mine, obviously, otherwise I'd hold a different one.

My point exactly. You and every other person who wants to be a law unto themselves need only deny the existence of objective moral standards and values and then plug into the equation whatever agrees with your heart's desire. This becomes your morality, this becomes your value. You are taking the place of God, which you reject as existing, and make yourself to be god.