Hey, Atheists...

[zippy2006]

What I wouldn't want is for me to give rules and for them to follow them blindly.

Sure you do. If you tell your three year-old it’s nap time, you expect them to follow you blindly. Again, if they already had the sense to understand that it is nap time and why they need to take a nap, you wouldn’t need to resort to a rule or command at all.

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.

Then your answer to the multiple-choice question is B.

I'm happy for them to question the rules so I can then give my reasons for making them.

Then you still don’t understand the difference between a rule or command and a suggestion or advice. A command about swimming in the dangerous surf is one thing; a lecture or explanation about why one should not swim in the dangerous surf is another thing. If you’ve given the lecture then you have largely obviated the command. The whole point of rules and commands is their bindingness. When our children become adults we stop giving them rules and commands, and start giving them suggestions and advice. But you think rules are themselves suggestions. In any case, I’m repeating myself. This is all covered in my previous post.

In my experience children quite often need to be told what to do. We make the choices for them.

Yep: we give them rules, not suggestions.

When they are mature enough we allow them to decide for themselves.

Yep, and we stop giving them rules.

We hope that they don't don't do something just because someone says so.

You can't make a choice for your child without hoping that they do it just because you say so. Submit yourself to the law of non-contradiction.

 

[zippy2006]

'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

The man who treats laws as suggestions is lawless. You can be a man of lawlessness if you want, but not all humans are lawless. Some of us respect laws, including things like the law of non-contradiction. And if the atheist is lawless then he is not moral. Doing whatever the heck you want to do regardless of anyone’s protestations is not morality. It is just abysmal selfishness.

One is of course "free" to ignore the laws of nature or the laws of God or the laws of men, but they do so at their own peril. And they have no morality.

 

[Bradskii]

You can't make a choice for your child without hoping that they do it just because you say so.

I never have made a rule 'just because I say so.' That sentence has never been uttered in our house.

Yep, and we stop giving them rules.

C'mon. Gimme a break. That's exactly what we're talking about. 'Thou shalt...' and 'Thou shalt not...'

 

[Bradskii]

One is of course "free" to ignore the laws of nature or the laws of God or the laws of men, but they do so at their own peril. And they have no morality.

We're not talking about laws of men. We're talking about religious moral laws. Moral commandments. You don't follow Jewish moral laws. Do you therefore have no morality? No, of course not. You just don't have a morality that aligns with the Jewish religion. And mine sometimes doesn't align with the Christian religion. Or the Jewish religion. Or any other.

'Follow my religious moral commandments or you have no morality' is a silly argument.

As regards the specific commandment I mentioned, should a girl honour her father if he regularly beats and rapes her? Is there something in the small print that excludes her? Or does she refuse 'at her own peril'. Does she then 'have no morality'?

 

[durangodawood]

C'mon. Gimme a break. That's exactly what we're talking about. 'Thou shalt...' and 'Thou shalt not...'

Yeah. Im skeptical of a person who doesnt rob or kill me just because they are being obedient.

 

[Bradskii]

Yeah. Im skeptical of a person who doesnt rob or kill me just because they are being obedient.

And I'm worried that someone might fly a plane into a building again because they are being obedient.

Let's face it, if we all woke up tomorrow with zero memory of any religion, then morality wouldn't change. It would still be a bad idea to pull a gun on someone who cuts you up in traffic. If would still be a bad idea to steal someone's car. It would still be a bad idea to sexually assault a woman. But if you told everyone that a young girl who had been beaten and raped by her father that she should still honour him then people would think that you were mad.

 

[Robban]

Yeah. Im skeptical of a person who doesnt rob or kill me just because they are being obedient.

That you get to keeping your belongings and live to see another day thanks to an obedient person.

And you are skeptical?

Well, one has to hear much before one´s ears fall off.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What would we be comparing about them? How they’re the same? How they are different? Are we comparing philosopher to philosopher? How they’re ethics of one or the other is influenced by everything from age to society to location?

Or do you mean compare them, decide which one is right, and defend the winner?

No. I mean: With the Ethical position you already have, critique another secular Ethical position such as that of Karl Marx.

Can you do this exercise?

Or better yet. Can you discern the weaknesses in your own personal Ethical position, of whatever conceptual sort?

I have to ask because we live in a day and age where, apparently, most people can't critically and fairly discern these things about their own thinking. Instead, they make moral decisions by their so-called intuitions and disoriented, traumatized emotional predilections. There's very little in the way of actual critical thinking applied.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Trying to pick the bones out of that I think it's a rather long way of saying that you'll obey a moral rule as 'it is written' because it's God's and therefore it must be valid. Or that it's God's and whatever you think about it, you don't want to be punished.

The first raises the Euthyphro problem. The second, as has been said, is not you being moral, but obedient.

Maybe you could clarify.

Euthyphro? Seriously? That old canard hit the window and died a long time ago, Bradskii. It's time to bury that dead bird.

The second has apparently been grossly misunderstood................................ by "you."

And from my perspective, you assume to much about all of what it is you think feeds into my critical lines of thought. It amazes me how people are so darn sure of themselves on a great many things, all too easily even, especially where ethics and morality are concerned.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And I'm worried that someone might fly a plane into a building again because they are being obedient.

Let's face it, if we all woke up tomorrow with zero memory of any religion, then morality wouldn't change. It would still be a bad idea to pull a gun on someone who cuts you up in traffic. If would still be a bad idea to steal someone's car. It would still be a bad idea to sexually assault a woman. But if you told everyone that a young girl who had been beaten and raped by her father that she should still honour him then people would think that you were mad.

And if you haven't noticed, THIS isn't the Islamic public forums, Bradskii. I'd recommend that you stick to the context. Christians aren't the ones flying planes into buildings, if you haven't noticed.

Being that this is the case, you can spare us the Hitchens style rhetoric where criticisms applied to Islam are snuck in through the back door and misapplied to Christianity by resorting to generalist terms like, "religion bad!," and other conflations.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It would still be a bad idea to pull a gun on someone who cuts you up in traffic.

How do we know that? Consequences?

If would still be a bad idea to steal someone's car.

How do we know that? Golden rule?

It would still be a bad idea to sexually assault a woman.

Well, not in this country any more.

 

[durangodawood]

That you get to keeping your belongings and live to see another day thanks to an obedient person.

Its better than nothing. But its a dogs morality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Its better than nothing. But its a dogs morality.

... I would think a "dog's morality" is one that depends on acting upon mere sexual instinct.------"..... get off my leg, Fido! Stop that! I told you to stop! ............. Look at me! FiiiiiidOOOO! ... Don't bark at me like that. MMM mmmm. No. You go lay over on your mat until I tell you."

 

[Bradskii]

And if you haven't noticed...

Do you have any constructive response? A rebuttal perhaps? A different point of view?

 

[Bradskii]

How do we know that? Golden rule?

In a nutshel, yes. How would you know?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

In a nutshell, yes. How would you know?

I think it is our best universal rule. But when we come to conflicts it becomes a justice issue. Then, what is just?

This brings us to every controversy we have today from DEI to abortion, to immigration.
And I do not think we have the cultural virtues or moral discernment skills to cope with these issues...with or without religions.

 

[Bradskii]

I think it is our best universal rule.

Well, Jesus was a big fan, so there's that going for it as well.

But when we come to conflicts it becomes a justice issue. Then, what is just?

Do you mean what is a reasonable punishment for transgressing our 'rules'? Well, we have to ensure that the moral rule is one that prevents harm (No harm, no immorality). In which case we can make it a law.

And the punishment should be sufficient to deter others from transgressing that law.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you have any constructive response? A rebuttal perhaps? A different point of view?

Do you have any moral critiques about Christian ethics rather than those pertaining to Islam?

..............but yes. The Euthyphro Argument is dead in the water when it's applied to the Bible. Everyone who's read Plato's Euthyphro should realize this by now in our modern age. Apparently, some people are slow on the uptake. Or in denial.

Moreover, even if we all woke up tomorrow and all religions were gone, many of us would want an ethical framework that does more than offer us practical moral prescriptions based on consequential possibilities alone. In fact, I surmise that in a world without any religion at all, we'd have to have an ethical framework that does much, much more that merely offer us cautions against consequential possibilities since there will always be those deviants who require that ethicists actually explain 'why' certain actions are indeed morally wrong rather than merely being impractical to survival. Enforced rules for compliance to a rational rule will also need to be a corollary.

Otherwise, people will simply apply calculations at every opportunity they see fit and attempt to determine what the chances are they'll get away with whatever their their hearts and fancies desire.

 

[Bradskii]

Moreover, even if we all woke up tomorrow and all religions were gone, many of us would want an ethical framework that does more than offer us practical moral prescriptions based on consequential possibilities alone.

Like the Golden Rule perhaps. Good that a universally accepted moral standard could replace all religious ones.

 

[zippy2006]

We're not talking about laws of men.

We're talking about rules and laws of all kind. You treat them as suggestions, therefore have no rules or laws, and therefore have no morality.

If would still be a bad idea to steal someone's car.

Whether you think it is a "bad idea" to steal a car has little to do with whether you adhere to some morality. Even a good thief thinks it is a bad idea to steal certain cars. He treats the law as a suggestion, not as a law. Like you.