Hey, Atheists...

[2PhiloVoid]

Im just saying religious people have a great tool to help with this, especially monotheists - I think.

I do wonder if the tool really gets used tho, given publicly visible behaviors.

It does get used, but if we take a bit of what Jesus is reported to have said, only a "few" will actually think the tool should be seriously applied.

 

[zippy2006]

On this point you're essentially correct. But do keep in mind that Rawls specifically defines his "theory of justice" as following in the tracks of Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. In fact, even though he doesn't articulate his theory of "The Original Position" in terms that express a specific Kantian sort of transcendentally tempered idealism, i.e. a seeming necessary inference toward Moral Divinity in order to provide the conceptual collateral his theory needs, Rawls does posit the abstract concept of "The Veil of Ignorance" as a [supposedly] natural, rational rule of arbitration to bank and regulate his theory of justice.

Okay, fair enough.

Plus, I'm sure that if some Secular folks find out that R.M. Hare is Catholic, and that he posits his religious belief as an ambiguous "blik," they think he comes off as being too speculative and fails to meet their more evidentially and evolutionary constructed demands.

Oh, I didn't know he was Catholic or even Christian.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But what determines that it is a moral choice if there is no "rule book"?

Everybody does. (for themselves)

 

[zippy2006]

Everybody does. (for themselves)

So are atheists limited to "moral subjectivism" (which is commonly recognized to be not-morality-at-all)?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, I didn't know he was Catholic or even Christian.

I probably have to rescind my comment about R.M. Hare being "Catholic." I think you're right that he wasn't, but I could have sworn that one of my professors 20 years ago mentioned that he was. At best, R.M. Hare was an ethicist who, from what I glean, had at the least an affinity for Anglicanism.

However, R.M. Hare's son, John E. Hare, is a Christian Philosopher (see the link below). So, that's interesting.

God and Morality: A Philosophical History - Christian Scholar’s Review

God and Morality: A Philosophical History John E. Hare Published by Wiley-Blackwell in 2007 pp / $ / Amazon Goodreads Modern philosophical ethics have tried often to show how ethics can be independent of theology—with limited success. John Hare is a Christian philosopher, currently holding the...

christianscholars.com

 

[zippy2006]

However, R.M. Hare's son, John E. Hare, is a Christian Philosopher (see the link below). So, that's interesting.

God and Morality: A Philosophical History - Christian Scholar’s Review

God and Morality: A Philosophical History John E. Hare Published by Wiley-Blackwell in 2007 pp / $ / Amazon Goodreads Modern philosophical ethics have tried often to show how ethics can be independent of theology—with limited success. John Hare is a Christian philosopher, currently holding the...

christianscholars.com

Quite relevant. At least someone paid close attention to Hare's work.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Everybody does. (for themselves)

Existentially speaking, this is true. But on the level of ontology, and knowing that different ethical systems can produce difference outcomes and varied identifications of moral qualia, we can all recognize that one ethical position isn't the same as another.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Everybody does. (for themselves)

Moral relativism/subjectivism then. No wonder we have so much disagreement.

But then, religion is not an answer either, is it.
We have as much everybody does for themselves there also really.

I think we need moral standards that do not involve religions.

 

[Bradskii]

... but who gets to define what either a "moral" or an "immoral" person is?

You do.

Without an absolute set of values for morality...

I assume that you agree with whatever Christian set of values you subscribe to. In other words you decided that they were correct. You agreed with them. I can't imagine that you would subscribe to a set of values with which you didn't agree.

You'll note that the second person singular was used 6 times then.

 

[Bradskii]

But what determines that it is a moral choice if there is no "rule book"?

Are you saying that you wouldn't know if there wasn't one?

 

[Bradskii]

So, if I decide to refrain from that special sin because a rule book I respect tells me to, even though my personal fancy would wish to do otherwise, I think it's safe to say I count as a "moral" agent at that moment...

You refrain because you agree with the rule. If you didn't, you'd ignore it (unless you were worried about being punished).

 

[Bradskii]

I think we need moral standards that do not involve religions.

I personally don't care where they come from. As long as they make sense (to me) then any source will do.

 

[zippy2006]

You refrain because you agree with the rule. If you didn't, you'd ignore it (unless you were worried about being punished).

So you think that the only reason anyone would follow a rule is for fear of punishment? If they refrain it is because they personally decided to refrain or because they agree with the rule, not because they followed the rule. And if they don't agree with the rule then they will ignore it, sans punishment. So on your view the rule doesn't affect anyone's behavior whatsoever, unless it threatens a punishment.

An odd view.

 

[durangodawood]

If they are so sensible then why do they require a repository and enforcement mechanism?

Sensible means it appeals to reason. Reason is easily overthrown by appetite or emotion.

Now I think you've been listening to Jordan Peterson.

Most certainly not! Im not at all well read in philosophy. So my ideas are typically my own.....for better or worse.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You do.

I get to decide for myself which moral principles I need to live by? Wow. That's a new revelation to me. I'll try to remember that next time I encounter a stop light.

I assume that you agree with whatever Christian set of values you subscribe to. In other words you decided that they were correct. You agreed with them. I can't imagine that you would subscribe to a set of values with which you didn't agree.

Actually, it's sort of difficult to simply "agree" with whatever Christian set of values I find in the Bible ... when subscribing requires an ontology to back the alleged ethical framework behind the moral prescriptions. I don't believe Adam and Eve were real people, ...........

........... so NO, I didn't merely decide myself, let alone by myself, as to what should be moral or immoral without some amount of inquiry into what other people (or a God) may also think, or into how my decisions and actions comport with the structure of reality around me.

Let's not conflate an instance of a personal but still educated moral decision with one made in the vacuum of a self made solipsism.

You'll note that the second person singular was used 6 times then.

I'm not sure that keeping a count of this type helps your argument here, Bradskii.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You refrain because you agree with the rule. If you didn't, you'd ignore it (unless you were worried about being punished).

... So, one has to agree with a rule in order to surmise or infer that it is a wise thing to obey?

Exactly what all is entailed in a person's agreement with a given moral rule? Do you have a comprehensive psychological profile of the mental state and all of the accompanying epistemic nuances involved in such an agreement?

 

[Bradskii]

So you think that the only reason anyone would follow a rule is for fear of punishment?

No, I meant that if you followed it then you personally must have agreed that it's a valid rule. Which is what we all do.

If they refrain it is because they personally decided to refrain...

What point is there having a rule that doesn't apply?

...or because they agree with the rule, not because they followed the rule.

I can't parse this sentence.

And if they don't agree with the rule then they will ignore it, sans punishment. So on your view the rule doesn't affect anyone's behavior whatsoever, unless it threatens a punishment.

Let me list the options.

1. There's a rule with which you agree. By agreeing you have made a personal decision that it's valid. It's you that validates it.
a) If you follow it, all good.
b) If you don't follow it then you must think it doesn't apply to to you, or...
c) If you don't follow it and it does apply to you then you are risking a possible punishment.

2. There's a rule with which you don't agree. It was your personal call. You'll ignore it.

 

[Bradskii]

I get to decide for myself which moral principle I get to live by? Wow. That's a new revelation to me. I'll try to remember that next time I encounter a stop light.

I'll assume you'll stop because you don't want to kill someone else, be killed yourself or get a ticket. Who makes that moral choice?

Actually, it's sort of difficult to simply "agree" with whatever Christian set of values I find in the Bible ... when subscribing requires an ontology to back the alleged ethical framework behind the moral prescriptions. I don't believe Adam and Eve were real people, ...........

........... so NO, I didn't merely decide myself, let alone by myself, as to what should be moral or immoral without some amount of inquiry into what other people (or a God) may also think, or into how my decisions and actions comport with the structure of reality around me.

Let's not conflate an instance of a personal but still educated moral decision with one made in the vacuum of a self made solipsism.

I'm not. We're talking about rules already in place and whether you agree with them. I'll say that again...whether you agree with them. Nobody gets to decide for you.

I'm not sure that keeping a count of this type helps your argument here, Bradskii.

Indeed it does. It emphasises that it's you that makes the decisions. No-one else is involved.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So are atheists limited to "moral subjectivism" (which is commonly recognized to be not-morality-at-all)?

No, but that's how I see it.

 

[zippy2006]

What point is there having a rule that doesn't apply?

What does it mean for a rule to apply? You make it sound like a rule is a suggestion. "If you agree with it, then take its advice. If you don't agree with it, ignore it."

I mean, if you give your daughter a rule, "Don't swim in the dangerous surf," how would you expect her to relate to that rule?