Hey, Atheists...

[Tropical Wilds]

... but who gets to define what either a "moral" or an "immoral" person is? Without an absolute set of values for morality, it's kind of difficult to discern if and when another person is objectively being fully moral or not.

You’re not capable of knowing what’s moral or not unless you know God is watching…?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

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

Are you only capable of making moral choices if you have a “rule book” to follow?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

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.

I’m sure Muslims will be excited to know that people think they have a great tool to decide morality, right on up there with Christians and Jews.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You’re not capable of knowing what’s moral or not unless you know God is watching…?

Tropical, if you've studied Ethics and Epistemology, along with your Theology and Psychology, you wouldn't be asking this question ...

... and I'm trying to say this to you in a nice way 'cuz I generally like you.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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

Very likely, but let's not make the tyro mistake of confusing legal with moral.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Tropical, if you've studied Ethics and Epistemology, along with your Theology and Psychology, you wouldn't be asking this question ...

... and I'm trying to say this to you in a nice way 'cuz I generally like you.

Ok, but what I’m pointing out if you’re capable of deciding basic ethics and morality intrinsically, why wouldn’t one assume an atheist can do the same? Religion crafts specific directives for specific religious goals, but without those I’m sure you could ascertain right from wrong and act accordingly.

We all know randomly punching people in the face is wrong. Religion’s function is to say “and because we know punching random people in the face is wrong, it is not what a faithful person does, and to be faithful yields you these rewards.”

It’s the same discernment that has you reading the Bible and discarding things that, despite being outlined as appropriate religiously speaking, are not how one conducts themselves in a moral and free society.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok, but what I’m pointing out if you’re capable of deciding basic ethics and morality intrinsically, why wouldn’t one assume an atheist can do the same? Religion crafts specific directives for specific religious goals, but without those I’m sure you could ascertain right from wrong and act accordingly.

We all know randomly punching people in the face is wrong. Religion’s function is to say “and because we know punching random people in the face is wrong, it is not what a faithful person does, and to be faithful yields you these rewards.”

It’s the same discernment that has you reading the Bible and discarding things that, despite being outlined as appropriate religiously speaking, are not how one conducts themselves in a moral and free society.

I'm sensing a rather simple, binary structure in your personal conception of Ethics. Ethics, and the actions that spring from our moral deliberations, can't simply be pared down to a decision about whether or not any of us will hurt another person or instead be altruistic.

I've already said earlier in this thread that I think atheist have morals. However, this isn't to also say that they have the capacity to be as fully moral as they could be. Moreover, it's not enough to cite morality as merely a matter of how one comports himself within a free society.

There are many, many more nuances to Ethics and our individual moral choices than what pertain to the social context of a "free society," a whole lot more............................................... Read any academic and scholarly, secular source/book on Ethics alone and you'll see what I'm saying is true.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I'm sensing a rather simple, binary structure in your personal conception of Ethics. Ethics, and the actions that spring from our moral deliberations, can't simply be pared down to a decision about whether or not any of us will hurt another person or instead be altruistic.

I’m not sure why you sense that as I didn’t say or imply any of what you’ve stated above.

I've already said earlier in this thread that I think atheist have morals. However, this isn't to also say that they have the capacity to be as fully moral as they could be. Moreover, it's not enough to cite morality as merely a matter of how one comports himself within a free society.

There are many, many more nuances to Ethics and our individual moral choices than what pertain to the social context of a "free society," a whole lot more............................................... Read any academic and scholarly, secular source/book on Ethics alone and you'll see what I'm saying is true.

I think the issue is you’re treating morality and ethics guided by religion as a concrete, provable positive and thus a more refined or better form of ethics and morals than those who don’t claim a faith. To be a moral person is one thing, to be a moral Christian is another. An atheist is totally capable of the former and not interested in achieving the latter as it’s irrelevant.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I’m not sure why you sense that as I didn’t say or imply any of what you’ve stated above.

I think the issue is you’re treating morality and ethics guided by religion as a concrete, provable positive and thus a more refined or better form of ethics and morals than those who don’t claim a faith. To be a moral person is one thing, to be a moral Christian is another. An atheist is totally capable of the former and not interested in achieving the latter as it’s irrelevant.

Tropical, in saying what you're saying here, you're proving my point. I'm not sure you realize this, and my the point I've been driving in regard to Ethics has NOTHING to do with Christianity.

Here, let's try this brief exercise instead; it's an exercise that doesn't require the Bible whatsoever: Take Karl Marx and critique his ethics. Take any non-Christian ethicist and critique his or her ethics.

Can you do this? If so, by which Ethical position are you critiquing the other positions and why is "IT" the right one by which to critique the others?

 

[o_mlly]

How about we talk about a non religious source of morality? Religious people have their scripture that they can claim as foundational (even though they will disagree on how to interpret). But what golden rule do you use? something like categorical imperative? utilitarianism? How do you decide what laws are needed?

An irreligious morality is one which dismisses all transcendent authority with one's own authority. I don't see much sense in debating with such persons as there is no appeal to an authority that both respect. The debate usually ends in the retort from the atheist, "Well, that may be true for you but not for me".

 

[essentialsaltes]

The debate usually ends in the retort from the atheist, "Well, that may be true for you but not for me".

Ugh, that would be truth relativism. No thanks.

I think I know the sort of debate you mean, but my answer would be "Well, you may believe that X is morally wrong, but I don't believe X is morally wrong."

But that could be just as well spoken between two Christians who disagree on some moral issue.

 

[o_mlly]

Ugh, that would be truth relativism. No thanks.

Doesn't change the truth of my claim: w/o a transcendent authority to which both accept, the debate will be fruitless.

Truth relativism is the claim that knowledge, truth and morality exist in relation to culture or society and that there are no universal truths.

Truth subjectivism is the claim that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth.

But that could be just as well spoken between two Christians who disagree on some moral issue.

Christianity has many different religions. Two Christians from the same tradition with a well-defined moral code on the issue at hand would not have such a problem.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Christianity has many different religions. Two Christians from the same tradition with a well-defined moral code on the issue at hand would not have such a problem.

Many Catholics disagree on matters on which the Church has a well-defined position.

 

[o_mlly]

Many Catholics disagree on matters on which the Church has a well-defined position.

And those Catholic would lose the debate.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

We all know randomly punching people in the face is wrong.

Do we? If so it is because of empathy and something like the categorical imperative as our "rule book".
Is that good enough?

 

[RileyG]

And those Catholic would lose the debate.

….because they don’t know what the Church teaches and are poorly catechized

 

[RileyG]

You’re not capable of knowing what’s moral or not unless you know God is watching…?

I have a sincere question for you, only because I’m truly curious.

What’s your spiritual background/what do you religiously identify as?

 

[RileyG]

The golden rule is...The Golden Rule. If you generally stick with 'Do unto others etc' then that'll cover most situations. The categorical imperative is just a more formal way of expressing it. In most cases we all generally take a utilitarian approach, but that can lead to less than ideal decisions if you stick to it rigidly.

On the other side of the coin, something can only be immoral if it causes harm.

Sounds great to me!

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Truth relativism is the claim that knowledge, truth and morality exist in relation to culture or society and that there are no universal truths.

Truth subjectivism is the claim that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth.

Good summary and it seems that both are at play. On a larger scale there are some relative norms on a more personal scale there are subjective norms.

 

[zippy2006]

Very likely, but let's not make the tyro mistake of confusing legal with moral.

It is a "tyro" mistake to think they are separable.

If you would try to get others to uphold your morality on the basis of reason, then you're really not a moral subjectivist at all. You think your morality is objectively accessible through the use of reason.