Hey, Atheists...

[Ana the Ist]

I agree. And this is why some of us actually take Ethics and Epistemology classes at the university..... so we can find out that none of this stuff is as easy to come by as our intuitions tell us it should be.

If any philosopher has successfully created an ethical system for all I'm sure I'd have heard of it by now...

Of course, various power brokers won't like the fact that their political stance lies upon shifting ground. They've been discovered and their power as morality overseers is sorely lacking in its justification.

I'm not sure exactly who this refers to...

If however, you're suggesting that someone will have no easier time justifying a behavior they see as "good" than someone justifying the prevention of that behavior as "good" ...then I'd agree.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If any philosopher has successfully created an ethical system for all I'm sure I'd have heard of it by now...

And so would have I.

I'm not sure exactly who this refers to...

It's meant to apply to ALL power brokers, either on the Left or the Right.

If however, you're suggesting that someone will have no easier time justifying a behavior they see as "good" than someone justifying the prevention of that behavior as "good" ...then I'd agree.

Something like that ...

 

[Injeun]

There is no hiding from God. He knows all of our secrets. Yet he doesn't betray us. Instead he extends his mercy to us all the days of our lives. And all the while encouraging us to the straight and narrow covenant path, as if life were a dream from which we wrestle to awaken, and come to a knowledge of the truth

The world too calls, with its traditions, philosophies, schedules, and demands. It is delightful and great. In Revelation John wrote, "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities." John goes on to describe unbelievable calamities.

So was John a lunatic. Or is the world into which we are born and do live a maddened and far flung thing, normalized by our familiarity with it, yet ever more a stranger to the ways of God? This is why some pray, to bring their hearts to him and set their backs to the world.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Fair enough.

I do think we generally have common ground, don't we?

When you consider the extremely immoral....or extremely taboo....we probably have very similar views. Likewise, I think we both recognize good deeds and great deeds in a very similar fashion...

I'm saying this without even knowing your moral views in particular...I'm confident because we both come from a society with the same moral norms which were derived from the same sources. That's why I can be confident that we probably agree a great deal when considering many basic and extreme examples of both good and evil.

Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, basic and extreme examples. But when it comes to the issue that divide us, abortion, gun control, gender, etc. We cannot seem to come to terms.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But without a framework the discussion has no boundaries or guiding principles. Even with a framework it can be difficult to have productive discussion.

I have come to appreciate Narrative ethics. The Ethical Force of Stories: Narrative Ethics and Beyond

Yes, basic and extreme examples. But when it comes to the issue that divide us, abortion, gun control, gender, etc. We cannot seem to come to terms.

I think even on those issues we disagree less than it seems. I would imagine that a 1 day limit of abortion would be as ridiculous sounding to one side as the idea of a abortion during birth to the other side. The average person is pulled by the more zealous peers of their group into an "all or nothing" position without compromise. This is typically done with the threat of being excluded from the in-group....

Yet if we asked the religious and non-religious alike....anonymously, I wouldn't be surprised to find there's a lot of common ground. The same probably goes for gun control.

As for gender....it's a slightly different ballgame. I'd argue the concessions being asked of society are inherently deceptive. If you want an ethical maxim....here's one for you....

Remain consistent with what your moral priorities actually are. If, for example, you want people to use specific pronouns in reference to you...and you tell them it's simply a politeness and not a big deal...then should they refuse, you cannot claim they are a bigot, causing suicide, or otherwise erasing trans people. Clearly it's not merely a politeness and it's a very big deal....so why the deception? It's a reasonable reaction to be suspicious and skeptical of such unprecedented demands.

 

[zippy2006]

Bradskii seems to think that we cannot choose to trust another, and allow that trust to order our choice. He thinks we can only ever trust ourselves, and thus choose in isolation from trust in another.

Curiously, I was listening to an interview of Paul VanderClay, and he defines a Christian as, "Someone who trusts Jesus more than they trust themselves."

 

[Aaron112]

The world too calls, with its traditions, philosophies, schedules, and demands. It is delightful and great. In Revelation John wrote, "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Notice that most of the world receives various plagues; while those who do not, are blamed by those who have and who promote the plagues one way or another.

"Come out of her" so as to "receive not of her plagues". As God Permits and Planned for a few who are chosen; vs many who are called ?

 

[MehGuy]

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?

I do not have any concrete golden rule. I just try my best.

I do have personal moral preferences, but I respect in the grand scheme of things the universe won't, nor provide any objective answers to stop other people from not respecting them.

I do wish there was an objective morality I could latch onto but sadly I see none, nor expect for there to have to be one. This state is sad, but it is what it is.

 

[o_mlly]

If any philosopher has successfully created an ethical system for all I'm sure I'd have heard of it by now...

Well, if such a philosopher existed, the least he could do is raise himself from being dead ... you know, just to be fair.

I think even on those issues we disagree less than it seems. I would imagine that a 1 day limit of abortion would be as ridiculous sounding to one side as the idea of a abortion during birth to the other side. The average person is pulled by the more zealous peers of their group into an "all or nothing" position without compromise.

The average person should be persuaded by reason ... not merely faith in the immorality of direct abortions.

We do not know the moment human life exists. We do know that life does not precede conception.
In ignorance, may we take a lethal act at innocent life? No.
So, in our ignorance, from conception, we ought not kill.

Seems pretty objective to me.

 

[stevevw]

Maybe the point of my asking is to help clarify a non Biblical foundation for public norms.
Do we have an innate moral compass?

Despite the width and diversity of their philosophical views, secular ethicists generally share one or more principles:

• Human beings, through their ability to empathize, are capable of determining ethical grounds.
• The well-being of others is central to ethical decision-making.
• Human beings, through logic and reason, are capable of deriving normative principles of behavior.
• This may lead to a behavior preferable to that propagated or condoned based on religious texts. Alternatively, this may lead to the advocacy of a system of moral principles that a broad group of people, both religious and non-religious, can agree upon.
• Human beings have the moral responsibility to ensure that societies and individuals act based on these ethical principles.
• Societies should, if at all possible, advance from a less ethical and just form to a more ethical and just form.

Secular ethics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Research shows humans are born with a sense of empathy, justice, fairness and kindness. Even new born babies have been shown to cry at the cries of other babies pain.

Studies show toddlers have a sophisticated morality and are able to determine the bad actor from the good, will help the good actor share or bring just outcomes and can even tell when a bad action is done for a good reason.

Studies also that despite cultural differences all cultures shore certain core morals such as family values (honoring parents and the family unit), group loyalty, reciprocity (returning good deeds) bravery (defending family and group), respect (defer to authority), fairness (and justice) and property rights (not stealing other peoples stuff).

 

[Hans Blaster]

Research shows humans are born with a sense of empathy, justice, fairness and kindness. Even new born babies have been shown to cry at the cries of other babies pain.

Studies show toddlers have a sophisticated morality and are able to determine the bad actor from the good, will help the good actor share or bring just outcomes and can even tell when a bad action is done for a good reason.

Studies also that despite cultural differences all cultures shore certain core morals such as family values (honoring parents and the family unit), group loyalty, reciprocity (returning good deeds) bravery (defending family and group), respect (defer to authority), fairness (and justice) and property rights (not stealing other peoples stuff).

Thanks Steve! I think you met the OP's challenge and provided a perfectly sound start to a moral system w/o needing religion. (Not sarcasm, but maybe not the response you'd like. Cheers and have a good day.)

 

[stevevw]

Thanks Steve! I think you met the OP's challenge and provided a perfectly sound start to a moral system w/o needing religion. (Not sarcasm, but maybe not the response you'd like. Cheers and have a good day.)

OK thanks. Why is it not the response I'd like

 

[Kylie]

OK thanks. Why is it not the response I'd like

Because, as Hans said, it shows how a person can have a moral system without needing religion.

 

[stevevw]

Because, as Hans said, it shows how a person can have a moral system without needing religion.

Ok well I knew that already but thought it may have been something less obvious. But that is not a very strong arguement against God and objective morality.

In fact it sort of supports that there is a God in that if there was such a God don't you think He would create us with the knowledge of Him so that we can have relationship with God. In fact the bible says this is the case.

But it also supports objective morality as it shows that morality is not subjective or relative to the culture. If we are born with a moral sense then its not taught or socially constructed but innate. In our bones so to speak,

If all cultures have the same basic morals then its not that the morals themselves are relative but that how they are applied asccording to the circumstances and facts for that culture.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok well I knew that already but thought it may have been something less obvious. But that is not a very strong arguement against God and objective morality.

We're not making arguments against god(s). The OP wants us to show how morality can arise w/o a god, and your post for naturalistic bases to morality shows that pretty soundly. Frankly, it is stronger coming from a believer.

In fact it sort of supports that there is a God in that if there was such a God don't you think He would create us with the knowledge of Him so that we can have relationship with God. In fact the bible says this is the case.

But it also supports objective morality as it shows that morality is not subjective or relative to the culture. If we are born with a moral sense then its not taught or socially constructed but innate. In our bones so to speak,

If all cultures have the same basic morals then its not that the morals themselves are relative but that how they are applied asccording to the circumstances and facts for that culture.

"Moral relativism" wasn't the topic of the thread, and I'm not arguing it (for or against). (This thread has been mostly silent for the last 2 months anyway.)

 

[BCP1928]

Ok well I knew that already but thought it may have been something less obvious. But that is not a very strong arguement against God and objective morality.

In fact it sort of supports that there is a God in that if there was such a God don't you think He would create us with the knowledge of Him so that we can have relationship with God. In fact the bible says this is the case.

But it also supports objective morality as it shows that morality is not subjective or relative to the culture. If we are born with a moral sense then its not taught or socially constructed but innate. In our bones so to speak,

If all cultures have the same basic morals then its not that the morals themselves are relative but that how they are applied asccording to the circumstances and facts for that culture.

Yes, and the Bible records how morals were applied to the circumstances and facts for a particular ANE culture.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If we are born with a moral sense then its not taught or socially constructed but innate.

But we do not all have the same moral sense. That's the very definition of subjective.

 

[BCP1928]

We're not making arguments against god(s). The OP wants us to show how morality can arise w/o a god, and your post for naturalistic bases to morality shows that pretty soundly. Frankly, it is stronger coming from a believer.

"Moral relativism" wasn't the topic of the thread, and I'm not arguing it (for or against). (This thread has been mostly silent for the last 2 months anyway.)

Apparently Steve has been able come up with arguments in favor of it without our help.

 

[stevevw]

We're not making arguments against god(s). The OP wants us to show how morality can arise w/o a god, and your post for naturalistic bases to morality shows that pretty soundly. Frankly, it is stronger coming from a believer.

Why do you think God or a god would not install some natural way in humans for knowing Him. This is not an arguement for morality being naturalistic ultimate cause. No more than saying consciousness is a naturalistically caused by the physical brain.

Its the same for evolution itself. Evolution does not mean its a naturalistic way of explaining reality without a need for God. What if evoilution is part of Gods creation. It makes sense that He equips creatures with the ability to adapt to environments.

"Moral relativism" wasn't the topic of the thread, and I'm not arguing it (for or against). (This thread has been mostly silent for the last 2 months anyway.)

Subjective and relative morality were inherent in the OP. It was asking what basis do atheists have for morality. Is it the Golden Rule, Utalitarianism ect. Which would include the different ways atheists like Sam Harris understand morality ie human wellbeing. Or humanism, Wokism, first principles, logic or whatever basis atheists will ground morality in.

As far as I understand there is no basis for morality for atheists is that is truely objective beyond human subjective and relative beliefs and feelings.

I think the aim was to illicit those rationals for morality and discuss whether they are a sound basis for morality. Otherwise what else could be discussed.

 

[BCP1928]

Subjective and relative morality were inherent in the OP. It was asking what basis do atheists have for morality. Is it the Golden Rule, Utalitarianism ect. Which would include the different ways atheists like Sam Harris understand morality ie human wellbeing. Or humanism, Wokism, first principles, logic or whatever basis atheists will ground morality in.

And then you went on to answer the question yourself, clearly and succinctly.

...as it shows that morality is not subjective or relative to the culture. If we are born with a moral sense then its not taught or socially constructed but innate. In our bones so to speak,

If all cultures have the same basic morals then its not that the morals themselves are relative but that how they are applied asccording to the circumstances and facts for that culture.