Do Atheists have any moral and ethical backstops?

[Moral Orel]

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.

I responded to someone being chastised for believing that there are some contexts when slavery is morally permissible. It seems the three of us are in agreement then. You jumped in a few posts too late to know what I was talking about.

 

[Strathos]

I'm pretty sure the answer is no, as many atheists have completely conflicting moralities with each other.

 

[Moral Orel]

Of course I argue over non-objective (i.e. subjective) matters. We all do as @Moral Orel pointed out above.

The best books and films are obviously subjective but so are politics and paintings and literature and food and morals. Most of the things we disagree on are subjective. Believe it or not we can still explain why we think something is better or worse (or good or evil). This is how morality changes with time.

Absolute rules (like your Bible) permit of no discussion - they just are. They are also dangerous. Because they are absolute and lack justification they may well hang around long after the need for them is dead and gone.

OB

Most folks seem to agree that things that work are good. Maybe they mean that they're objectively good, or maybe they mean that they feel they're good. But either way, the most persuasive logical fallacy is the argument from emotion. Which is fallacious, but it's still an argument. And it works better than purely logical ones to boot!

 

[zippy2006]

Sometimes erroneously.

Always erroneously.

Consensus doesn't make something objective.

But this all really belongs in your thread, not this one. I don't really understand the point of this post. You're not really trying to say that "What is the best movie?" can be answered objectively, are you? If so, what is it?

If you don't think something is objective then you shouldn't be arguing over it. It's that simple. Hence "argument presupposes objectivity."

In the other thread I defined objective as "true and accessible to all." If you don't think the claim you are making is true and accessible to your interlocutor, then you shouldn't be arguing about it with him.

Feel free to move this to the other thread if you want.

 

[Occams Barber]

No, things can't be better or worse if there is no objective measure of what is better and worse, just as things can't be shorter or longer without an objective measure of length.

It's remarkable that you would say such irrational things and then in the same breath accuse others of being irrational. But them's folk.

Things can be SUBJECTIVELY better or worse. Better or worse or good, better, best in painting or politics are subjective concepts. That's why people can have discussions about these things. In these discussions I might explain how a (say) political system is beneficial in terms of the subjective values I hold. You will do the same. We may agree on the consequences of a given system but will have differing (subjective) views on whether this outcome is good or bad for society. That's because we have differing (subjective) views on what constitutes a good society.

A 'better society' isn't something we can measure with a ruler but we can still have a subjective view of what constitutes 'better'.

OB

 

[Kylie]

Yes.

What possible situation is there that could justify stripping a human of their humanity?

 

[Bradskii]

No, things can't be better or worse if there is no objective measure of what is better and worse, just as things can't be shorter or longer without an objective measure of length.

Is Godfather II better than the original? On what objective standards (that would be standards that don't include your personal opinion) would you base your answer?

 

[zippy2006]

Feel free to move this to the other thread if you want.

Conversation moved --> Is there Objective Morality?

 

[Abaxvahl]

What possible situation is there that could justify stripping a human of their humanity?

None. Not sure what you mean by that fully, but if you mean depriving them of all personal rights (duties owed to them), then none.

 

[Kylie]

None. Not sure what you mean by that fully, but if you mean depriving them of all personal rights (duties owed to them), then none.

So how can you say that it is never acceptable to deny a person their personal rights, but then claim that in some situations it is acceptable to reduce them to the status of property?

 

[Abaxvahl]

So how can you say that it is never acceptable to deny a person their personal rights, but then claim that in some situations it is acceptable to reduce them to the status of property?

For the minimum form of slavery I accept as I said above does not deny a person all their personal rights.

 

[Occams Barber]

Conversation moved --> Is there Objective Morality?

Forget it Zip. The goalposts are right here on this thread.

OB

 

[Estrid]

I'm pretty sure the answer is no, as many atheists have completely conflicting moralities with each other.

Kind of like everyone else that way

 

[Kylie]

For the minimum form of slavery I accept as I said above does not deny a person all their personal rights.

What rights do they retain? The right to go where they please?

 

[Ken-1122]

What rights do they retain? The right to go where they please?

Well.... nobody has a right to go anywhere they please. I think the point he was trying to make is that not all slavery is akin to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade of the 15th-18th centuries, some forms are on record of slaves having treatment considered fair or even agreed upon by all parties involved like the Biblical story of Jacob agreeing to work for Laban 7 years in order to marry his daughter.

 

[Larniavc]

Like I asked, how does it differ?

Slavery is not supposed to rehabilitate, punish and protect.

Slavery is about forcing someone to work for another person and no other reason.

 

[Landon Caeli]

What are some examples of Christian backstops that you believe atheists do not have access to? I think there probably are some, but I would like to hear you elaborate on the meaning of "backstop" along with some examples.

Intuitive notions, such as the Near Occasion of Sin...

For example, an atheist might be more prone to legalize prostitution, because there would be a lack of concern in regards to playing a role in potentially breaking up marriages / families, where as a Christian might feel some level of responsibility. I suppose that could be considered a "near occasion of sin" in that regard, where for atheists, no such "backstop" exists outside of safety and fair pay.

...Instead, one without a backstop might say that whatever people decide is their own decision, and life is what it is? Maybe?

 

[Landon Caeli]

...I know the Near Occasion of Sin is a Catholic teaching, but I believe all Christians understand it. What I'm not sure of is whether the dismissal of it is rooted more in atheism or just narcissism in general.

 

[98cwitr]

Mod Hat On

This thread is now permanently closed:
​

Flaming and Goading

• Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
• Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF, or use nicknames to do so. A list of unacceptable names can be found here.. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
• NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, smileys or post ratings which are clearly meant to goad. Quoting and then editing another members post to change the original meaning, commonly referred to as "fixed it for you" (FIFY), is considered goading.
• "Calling out" a member is an unsolicited comment about another member in reference to something they may have said, their personal beliefs, their signature, or their avatar (challenging the member in a negative manner). This applies to any thread, whether the called out member is participating in that thread or not. Do not quote, or make comments about another member, in your signature or user title.
• Offensive derogatory nicknames and egregious inflammatory comments about public figures may be considered goading.
• Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
• If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.

Mod hat off