Do Atheists have any moral and ethical backstops?

[VirOptimus]

Okay, so your masters aren't interchangeable. That counts, sure. Seems kind of tangential to the things people hate about slavery though.

It's an aspect of it though, no? You don't get to choose what you do, your masters do.

Im not interested in debating you.

 

[Abaxvahl]

I dunno, I can kind of see it... I'm gonna get crucified by my atheist brethren for agreeing with you even in the slightest, but isn't prison sort-of-kind-of slavery? What's the difference, really? Loss of freedom, can't quit, can't move, room-and-board provided, but at the cost of forced labor...

I mean, colloquially if someone asks, "Is slavery bad?" then yeah, sure, of course, always. But if we're looking for circumstances that might make it okay, then yeah, we can find reasons to feel okay about it, can't we?

I consider a lot of jobs to be another mitigated form of it, so yes. And prison slavery and debt slavery are also forms of it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Im not interested in debating you.

Ran out of differences? Okie dokie!

 

[VirOptimus]

Ran out of differences? Okie dokie!

No, I just remembered who you are.

 

[Occams Barber]

What does forming a moral decision look like to you? For I fail to understand why having principles established and reasoning from them is not thinking what is morally right, considering that most everyone I know has principles they follow and work from Christian, atheist, and all the other varieties of man. Not to mention that Christian moral theology extremely frequently simply requires you to make a judgment about an act that is based on what your reason can see, which is why people have a variety of positions on many things, including what even counts as murder all working from the same principles, so it isn't really "what do the rules say" from my perspective.

I'm an atheist. I've never been a Christian and yet I'm quite capable of reaching a moral decision without the need to study some religious document telling me what to think. I'm not arguing here that my decision is better or worse than yours. The difference is that I made the decision based on rational issues like fairness, or harm or the 'greater good'. I can also change my decision if circumstances warrant it. Rightly or wrongly I've thought about my decisions and I can justify my decisions to myself.

In your case your decision has been handed to you by a system largely incapable of providing a rational explanation and unable to change with the circumstances. As an outstanding example: homosexuality is wrong because the Church says it's wrong. No justification, no explanation based on principles of greater good or harm or anything apart from "It's wrong".

You also seem to be incapable of deciding if slavery is wrong without referring to some obscure apologetics.

It's a moral system for those incapable of making a moral decision for themselves.

OB

 

[Abaxvahl]

I'm an atheist. I've never been a Christian and yet I'm quite capable of reaching a moral decision without the need to study some religious document telling me what to think. I'm not arguing here that my decision is better or worse than yours. The difference is that I made the decision based on rational issues like fairness, or harm or the 'greater good'. I can also change my decision if circumstances warrant it. Rightly or wrongly I've thought about my decisions and I can justify my decisions to myself.

In your case your decision has been handed to you by a system largely incapable of providing a rational explanation and unable to change with the circumstances. As an outstanding example: homosexuality is wrong because the Church says it's wrong. No justification, no explanation based on principles of greater good or harm or anything apart from "It's wrong".

You also seem to be incapable of deciding if slavery is wrong without referring to some obscure apologetics.

It's a moral system for those incapable of making a moral decision for themselves.

OB

I see, thank you for explaining. I do not think that the difference is you making a decision vs. someone reading a document, but instead the only difference is what facts you recognize in the world and what justifications you consider to be possible. I say this because if you take the harm thing for instance, me and you both can say "it's good not to let others harm people" (I think you'd agree with this, not sure), but what we decide that involves will be different not because one is having a decision made for them vs. making it for themselves but because of a difference in worldview. Burning heretics to somehow who doesn't recognize the existence of an immortal soul or God or judgment would seem like it is plainly harming someone to you, to me it is legitimately far closer to putting a murderer in jail, yet the reasoning is in both cases "it's for the greater good to protect society from people who indiscriminately harm others" (this is just an extreme example to make the point) which is rationally considered based on what harm is done, but you don't think the harm of heresy is even possible.

The real contention then isn't anything like you said but it just is about the facts of the world. I think if people all agreed on those they'd likely have similar answers with moral questions, or if I agreed with you about what the world was like I'd probably agree with you on all moral questions, but the problem isn't decision making it's what the world is like.

And with obscure apologetics, that's not what's happening. It is simply referring to what I think the world is like ultimately. If you couldn't refer to pain, social systems, any sort of harm at all, or the reality of death, and whatever it is that you consider when you come up with the conclusion "killing someone is wrong" would you not be incapable of saying why it is wrong? It is impossible to not refer to one's own idea of what the world is like when making a moral decision.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, I just remembered who you are.

I said "okie-dokie", sir!

 

[o_mlly]

My morality is what I determine it to be.

? Of course it is. Same with me. And the same for all rational creatures with free will.

 

[Estrid]

I'm an atheist. I've never been a Christian and yet I'm quite capable of reaching a moral decision without the need to study some religious document telling me what to think. I'm not arguing here that my decision is better or worse than yours. The difference is that I made the decision based on rational issues like fairness, or harm or the 'greater good'. I can also change my decision if circumstances warrant it. Rightly or wrongly I've thought about my decisions and I can justify my decisions to myself.

In your case your decision has been handed to you by a system largely incapable of providing a rational explanation and unable to change with the circumstances. As an outstanding example: homosexuality is wrong because the Church says it's wrong. No justification, no explanation based on principles of greater good or harm or anything apart from "It's wrong".

You also seem to be incapable of deciding if slavery is wrong without referring to some obscure apologetics.

It's a moral system for those incapable of making a moral decision for themselves.

OB

Esp for those who attempt moral absolutes,
like "I would not steal a penny to save a child
from torture".

 

[Estrid]

In lots of ways, for starters we dont trade in prisoners.

Forced labour is not slavery either.

Forced labour is an essential aspect of slavery.

Prisoners are sent from one US state to another, to
for- profit prisons.
Pretty fine distinction re "trade in".

And of course there's the death penalty.

Slavery seems to be like rape. It's wrong when it is rape
but out at the far edges it's not so clear what is what.

 

[zippy2006]

Or, its just that morals have changed since biblical times and that christians have no ”backstops”.

Well no, you're just committing a logically fallacy. The fact that someone's morality is unchanged by modern sentiment or opinion would point to the fact that they do have a "backstop," not that they don't. You just don't happen to like the "backstop" in question. But your personal preferences do not determine whether it is a "backstop."

 

[zippy2006]

I'm not talking about a person who says, "It is right for me to keep people as slaves, but I would not like to be a slave myself."

I'm talking about a person who says, "It is right for me to keep people as slaves, but it is not right for me to be a slave myself."

I think you've jumped to the conclusion that Abaxvahl holds to the second without sufficient evidence.

 

[zippy2006]

It's always fun to see those who claim that there is no objective morality getting all bent out of shape over slavery.

(link)

The difference is that I made the decision based on rational issues...

Is self-contradiction rational? Maybe you should find a document to help you, like a logic textbook.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's always fun to see those who claim that there is no objective morality getting all bent out of shape over slavery.

You're surprised to see folks who claim morals are based on emotion to get emotional about morals?

 

[Ken-1122]

Like I asked, how does it differ?

Are you seriously asking how is prison in the US different than slavery was in the US?

*Prisoners have citizenship rights; the Constitution applies to them, slaves had no rights.
*Prisoners get paid for the work they do, slaves did not
*If a prisoner decides he does not want to work, he only doesn’t get paid; slaves would be beaten and forced to work against their will
*Prisoners are guaranteed healthcare, descent food, and lodging; slaves had no such guarantees
*Prisoners were imprisoned due to their behavior, slaves due to their race.
*The average slave in the US only lived to age 30-35 before being overworked to death (In the West Indies they only lived to around the age of 25) Prisoners usually live well into their 70’s and average cause of death is not due to forced labor

That’s all I have time for right now, but I think you get the picture.

 

[Moral Orel]

Are you seriously asking how is prison in the US different than slavery was in the US?

No. I don't need to respond to the rest of your post since you're answering a question I didn't ask.

 

[Ken-1122]

No. I don't need to respond to the rest of your post since you're answering a question I didn't ask.

What question were you asking?

 

[Moral Orel]

What question were you asking?

Is slavery different from prison. No mention of US at all. Think of the bare minimum requirements for calling something slavery, and tell me what's the difference between that and what we commonly do in prisons.

 

[Occams Barber]

It's always fun to see those who claim that there is no objective morality getting all bent out of shape over slavery.

(link)



Is self-contradiction rational? Maybe you should find a document to help you, like a logic textbook.

If I make a subjective moral decision it doesn't mean I make it without reasons. My reasons are based on my values (i.e. subjective values). If my values change I may revise a particular moral stance. Other people may disagree with my reasoning/values. This means we have the basis for a discussion about the morality of a given act.

Your moral reasoning appears to be based on rules. Rule based reasoning lacks justification and permits of no argument apart from a legalistic interpretation of what the rule allows or disallows. Its also largely incapable of change.

Behavioural rules are what we provide for children before they're able to think for themselves.

OB

 

[Ken-1122]

Is slavery different from prison. No mention of US at all. Think of the bare minimum requirements for calling something slavery, and tell me what's the difference between that and what we commonly do in prisons.

Slavery is a very loaded term in the US. When we call something slavery, we think of something evil as I described in the previous post, but it isn’t always evil. In the Bible Jacob agreed to work unpaid for a man for 7 years in order to marry his daughter. In it’s loosest terms, this was slavery. Now wouldn’t it be absurd to say Jacob should not be allowed to become a slave for 7 years in order to marry the woman he loved? Of course slavery is perfectly fine as long as all parties involved agree to it.