Hey, Atheists...

[essentialsaltes]

we can all recognize that one ethical position isn't the same as another.

No argument from me.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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

Just subjectivism, not relativism. (Speaking for myself)

I think female genital mutilation is wrong, even if the people who practice it think it is right.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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.

Do you feel personally motivated to run a red light?

 

[zippy2006]

I think female genital mutilation is wrong, even if the people who practice it think it is right.

And you would enforce your subjective morality on other people?

 

[essentialsaltes]

And you would enforce your subjective morality on other people?

If I were appointed benevolent dictator of the world, yes. As it is, I work within the democratic system of laws and lawmakers that exists.

Nevertheless, my moral judgments are my own (who's else's?).

 

[zippy2006]

If I were appointed benevolent dictator of the world, yes. As it is, I work within the democratic system of laws and lawmakers that exists.

How would you work within that system to promote your subjective view?

 

[essentialsaltes]

How would you work within that system to promote your subjective view?

Vote for candidates and ballot initiatives that best align with my moral view.

 

[zippy2006]

Vote for candidates and ballot initiatives that best align with my moral view.

I am wondering if you would try to convince representatives or voters, via reason, that your view should be upheld.

 

[Bradskii]

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."

What else can you do? We're talking about Christian morals. 'Do this...' or' Don't do that...' Do you agree with the rules or not? You're the one that has to decide.

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?

Accept it. Or not. I'd think that she'd accept it as being a reasonable rule. If the rule was 'Be home by 9:00pm' and she was 25 then she'd ignore it.

Who makes the decision? She does. Who decides if a moral rule is valid? You do.

 

[zippy2006]

Accept it. Or not. I'd think that she'd accept it as being a reasonable rule.

So say she breaks your rule and swims in the dangerous surf. I assume you would fault her for this and decide whether to punish her. Would you fault her primarily because:

A) She did not recognize that the rule was reasonable, or
B) She did not listen to you

(I assume that if she already had the ability to discern whether the rule is reasonable, and therefore already knows not to swim in the dangerous surf, that you wouldn't need to give her the rule in the first place. After all, why give her a rule to do something that she already knows not to do?)

 

[Bradskii]

So say she breaks your rule and swims in the dangerous surf. I assume you would fault her for this and decide whether to punish her. Would you fault her primarily because:

A) She did not recognize that the rule was reasonable, or
B) She did not listen to you

(I assume that if she already had the ability to discern whether the rule is reasonable, and therefore already knows not to swim in the dangerous surf, that you wouldn't need to give her the rule in the first place. After all, why give her a rule to do something that she already knows not to do?)

None of this is relevant as to who makes the decision about whether moral rules are applicable. Spoiler alert...it's always you.

 

[zippy2006]

None of this is relevant as to who makes the decision about whether moral rules are applicable.

Not willing to answer my questions? We're investigating what a rule is in the first place.

 

[Bradskii]

Not willing to answer my questions? We're investigating what a rule is in the first place.

You know what a moral rule is. Do this...or don't do that. Please don't quibble over semantics.

'Honour your mother and father'. That's a Christian rule. An actual commandment. Do you agree with it or not? It's your decision whether you do or not, or whether it depends on circumstances. And you'll be the person deciding on the circumstances.

Who else could decide for you?

 

[zippy2006]

You know what a moral rule is.

You certainly don't, and that's probably why you don't want to answer my questions about the rules you set for your daughter. If you answered those questions you would end up admitting that rules are not mere suggestions.

 

[Bradskii]

You certainly don't, and that's probably why you don't want to answer my questions about the rules you set for your daughter. If you answered those questions you would end up admitting that rules are not mere suggestions.

Rules and commandments are meant to be obeyed. Who decides if they are valid as far as you are concerned?

 

[zippy2006]

Rules and commandments are meant to be obeyed. Who decides if they are valid as far as you are concerned?

Would you fault her primarily because:

A) She did not recognize that the rule was reasonable, or
B) She did not listen to you

 

[zippy2006]

Bradskii is bound determined not to look at his mistake, so for the sake of completeness I will just finish the argument without him:

(I assume that if she already had the ability to discern whether the rule is reasonable, and therefore already knows not to swim in the dangerous surf, that you wouldn't need to give her the rule in the first place. After all, why give her a rule to do something that she already knows not to do?)

A rule is not a suggestion. A rule and a suggestion are two different things, and a person who gives or receives a rule is not giving or receiving a suggestion. A rule (or prohibition) is binding in a way that a suggestion is not.

So say she breaks your rule and swims in the dangerous surf. I assume you would fault her for this and decide whether to punish her. Would you fault her primarily because:

A) She did not recognize that the rule was reasonable, or
B) She did not listen to you

Bradskii has implied that rules should be treated as suggestions, and that one should act in accordance with the rule if they agree with the rule, and ignore the rule if they do not. This is essentially to act as if the rule did not exist. Now suppose Bradskii's daughter follows his advice and treats his rule as a suggestion. In that case she has not done anything wrong in breaking the rule; she was merely offered some advice which she declined. This is obviously incorrect.

Secondly, if she has only to assess the rule itself, then Bradskii must answer with (A) instead of (B), which is also incorrect. As noted, if she is just going to subordinate the rule to her own lights—as Bradskii proposes—then there is really no reason to give her a rule in the first place. After all, no one gives a rule and then instructs that rules are to be treated as if they do not exist (or as if they have no binding force, and can be overridden at will).

So when Bradskii construes Christian moral laws as, "Act accordingly if you agree; ignore it if you disagree. That's all you're doing anyway," he is not even being consistent with his own experience with his children. He would never tell his child, "Obey my rule if you agree; ignore it if you disagree." The key oversight on Bradskii's part is the authority and provision of the lawgiver. The correct answer to the question above is therefore, "B) She did not listen to you." The lawgiver gives a binding law on his authority in order to help the person bound by the law, and this is what the parent is doing who sets rules for their children. If the children were competent to decide for themselves they wouldn't need rules. The only reason they are given a rule is because they are not competent to decide for themselves. And the key and meritorious act of the child is trust in their parent, not a rational assessment of the rules they have been given.

Finally, Bradskii wants to say that a decision about whether to follow a rule is always made by the individual. He is emphatic that it is the individual who gets to decide. But this is a non-starter and a preoccupation of classical liberalism, for the real essence of rule-following is trust and auctoritas. The decision is not even primarily about whether to follow a law. It is about whether to trust and abide by the lawgiver.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii has implied that rules should be treated as suggestions...

No, he didn't. A rule is mean to be followed. Such as 'Honour your mother and father'. What was on the stone tablet wasn't: 'I suggest that you honour your mother and father'. It was a commandment. No doubt about what it meant and no exceptions given. There wasn't an asterix carved next to it to get you to check the small print.

Now, does everyone honour their father and mother, even thought it was deemed important enough by God to be included in his Top Ten? Of course they don't. People decide whether it is applicable to them and their family. They decide whether it is valid or not.

So when Bradskii construes Christian moral laws as, "Act accordingly if you agree; ignore it if you disagree. That's all you're doing anyway," he is not even being consistent with his own experience with his children. He would never tell his child, "Obey my rule if you agree; ignore it if you disagree."

If I give a rule to my children (or rather if I did) it's because I think that it's valid. I expect it to be obeyed. But I'm not dumb enough to think that they won't have an internal debate as to whether it is valid or not. So 'Do not swim today' might well prompt a thought in either of them 'Well, the old man certainly seems to have thought about our safety here. The water is rough and he's a good swimmer and he thinks it's unsafe, so...what he says is entirely reasonable'.

What I wouldn't want is for me to give rules and for them to follow them blindly. I'm happy for them to question the rules so I can then give my reasons for making them.

When it comes to 'be home by 9:00pm' when it refers to a 25 year old woman, then she will most definitely have questioned that. And ignored it as well if I stuck to my guns. Because it's unreasonable.

In one case she would have decided 'Yes, that's reasonable' and in the other 'No, that's not'.

Finally, Bradskii wants to say that a decision about whether to follow a rule is always made by the individual. He is emphatic that it is the individual who gets to decide. But this is a non-starter and a preoccupation of classical liberalism, for the real essence of rule-following is trust and auctoritas. The decision is not even primarily about whether to follow a law. It is about whether to trust and abide by the lawgiver.

Then you ask no questions. You allow no exceptions. You obey the rule as written. There is no escape clause. It doesn't apply to others and not to you. So if you're in hospital after being beaten yet again by your alcoholic father while your drug addled mother screamed encouragement then you have no options. Trust and auctoritas. Honour them.

I don't know if that makes sense to you. But it makes none to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

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.

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

You're missing the inherent points, and in doing so, you end up floating around in your own Meta-Ethical surmisal and coming off sounding like a proponent of a revised version of A.J. Ayer, even if you don't intend to do so.

But yeah. If I could live like Solomon without repercussions, I'd be highly tempted to make that my daily dalliance. But since I make the rational appraisals about ethical "Reality" in the way that I rationally do, surmising there's a God and Lord to mind, then I think three times before pursuing my own inclinations or creating my own moral definitions.

I mean, how many times a day are you and I both tempted to set "loving even our enemies" to the side and decline the claim that it is a mandatory moral principle?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you feel personally motivated to run a red light?

Sometimes, I do feel motivated to run an assortment of "red lights," and I'm VERY skeptical of other people who claim they somehow "never feel motivated" to do so. In fact, if they say they don't ever feel motivated to do their own thing over and against various rules, I tend to think they're either dishonest or delusional and given to pretenses of virtuous appearance(s).

I guess Marx got at least one thing right about human morals-----the Bourgeoisie isn't really any morally better behind closed doors than the Proletariat people are out in the open.