Do Atheists have any moral and ethical backstops?

[Kylie]

Yes.

From the end of Lev 25 for one example: "As for your slave and your slave woman who are yours, from the nations that are all around you, from them you may buy a slave or a slave woman. And you may buy also from the children of the temporary residents who are dwelling with you as aliens and from their clan who are with you, who have children in your land; indeed, they may be as property for you. And you may pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you to take possession of as property for all time—you may let them work. But as for your countrymen, the Israelites, you shall not rule with ruthlessness over one another."

So you would have no problems being bought as a slave by a Canadian then?

 

[Abaxvahl]

So you would have no problems being bought as a slave by a Canadian then?

Depends on the context, but other than in some very specific circumstances I would have a problem with it.

 

[Kylie]

How would you counter the possible claim that slavery is wrong whatever anyone thinks? And is therefore objectively wrong?

Well, if a person holds the view that slavery is objectively justified, then they would presumably be okay with being held as a slave themselves. If they thought it was okay to keep people as slaves but not okay to be a slave themselves, then that is a double standard and shows that their views could not possibly be objective in nature.

Additionally, I can use my empathy to know how I would feel if I were a slave, and since I would not like it, I can conclude that other people would not like it either. I laid out this position in other threads, as quoted below.

No. It's because humans generally have this thing called "empathy" which means we can imagine ourselves in the place of another person. And since I know I would want someone to step and help me if I was being tortured, I reach the conclusion that the person I see being tortured would hold a similar wish.

If you rob an old lady and then feel bad, it's empathy because you are understanding how she feels by imagining how you would feel in her place. If you rob an old lady and don't feel bad, it shows that you don't put yourself in her place, which shows you lack empathy.

Likewise, if you help her with her groceries and feel good, you have empathy because you can imagine how good she feels.

 

[zippy2006]

Well, if a person holds the view that slavery is objectively justified, then they would presumably be okay with being held as a slave themselves. If they thought it was okay to keep people as slaves but not okay to be a slave themselves, then that is a double standard and shows that their views could not possibly be objective in nature.

But disliking something and believing it to be immoral are two different things. I dislike losing money at the poker table, but that doesn't mean that I think the winner has done something immoral.

 

[Bradskii]

That unless it is the only means of protecting society from said crime then it would not be justified, for this reasoning I would refer them to the Church which states this, who is the context in which the Scriptures are always read. If it was in line with the Church teaching on this though then I would not respond.

Slavery is against church teaching, so your position is in opposition to the church. So you defer to the church regarding some aspects of Leviticus but not others. Isn't that contradictory?

 

[Abaxvahl]

Slavery is against church teaching, so your position is in opposition to the church. So you defer to the church regarding some aspects of Leviticus but not others. Isn't that contradictory?

Slavery in some forms is against Church teaching, I quoted earlier from an article explaining the distinctions which I use and it was by a Cardinal.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2005/10/development-or-reversal

I defer to the Church in all of these things. Said article essentially covers all the teaching from back in Israel of old to recent Papal statements and our Catechism. It would be contradictory if I opposed the Church here.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

What? Just...what?

Some atheists are corrupt, others are caring. Ancient people I think were more corrupt and wicked than people today. The New Testament as an issue and human rights made changes. People like William Wilberforce.

From discerning, non literal in the Spirit of grace interpretation of the Bible, the Christians long ago when in control began to care for children in ways the Romans would not normally do as pagans. Not the pope so much as ones like St Francis and others doing better than Socrates by revising his work. The priests only recently found a means to stop other priests from abusing children. It was considered a sin, but not cut off. They were not the salt of the Earth. But some Christians have been and new ones are, salt, able to testify of good things Christ Jesus has done in and for them.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, if a person holds the view that slavery is objectively justified, then they would presumably be okay with being held as a slave themselves. If they thought it was okay to keep people as slaves but not okay to be a slave themselves, then that is a double standard and shows that their views could not possibly be objective in nature.

I'm not sure that 'their views (or opinion) could not be objective' makes sense. As Zippy said, it's two different things. If an act is objectively immoral then it's immoral because of the indisputable facts of the matter and personal opinions are relevant.

I'm not even sure that one's views on the facts of the matter are relevant either. The facts must be shown to be wrong as opposed to offering an opinion as to their veracity. And just thinking out aloud here - would those facts then have to be true in an absolute sense?

 

[Bradskii]

Slavery in some forms is against Church teaching, I quoted earlier from an article explaining the distinctions which I use and it was by a Cardinal.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2005/10/development-or-reversal

The distinctions in that article do not refer to the church's position today. Slavery in all forms is against church teaching and I don't think you're going to be able to find anything at all that refutes that position. But feel free to look and let me know.

'2414 The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord.'

 

[Bradskii]

Some atheists are corrupt, others are caring.

Some engineers likewise. And some stamp collectors. And some flat earthers. And some Christians. The point being that if you consider everyone then some people would be corrupt. Why on earth specify atheists when you are talking about child abuse?

And Christianity is the reason we all hate child abuse? Gee, I didn't know that Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc were so lacking in their treatment of children that they had to defer to your religion for some guidance.

'Did you see that report of the child being assaulted, Yousef?'
'Indeed. And praise be to Allah for allowing the Christians to teach us how wrong it is'.

 

[Astrid]

No, bro is another word for brother; IOW a friend as close to you as your brother

American slang and idioms!

 

[Astrid]

Depends on the context, but other than in some very specific circumstances I would have a problem with it.

The whole thing of slavery- still common in the USS- is that you don't
get choices.

 

[Astrid]

Some engineers likewise. And some stamp collectors. And some flat earthers. And some Christians. The point being that if you consider everyone then some people would be corrupt. Why on earth specify atheists when you are talking about child abuse?

And Christianity is the reason we all hate child abuse? Gee, I didn't know that Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc were so lacking in their treatment of children that they had to defer to your religion for some guidance.

'Did you see that report of the child being assaulted, Yousef?'
'Indeed. And praise be to Allah for allowing the Christians to teach us how wrong it is'.

A lot comes out in what people say.

 

[Abaxvahl]

The distinctions in that article do not refer to the church's position today. Slavery in all forms is against church teaching and I don't think you're going to be able to find anything at all that refutes that position. But feel free to look and let me know.

'2414 The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord.'

Everything in the article are about the position of the Church on these matters, including all Pope St. JP2 said on it (and this Catechism you quoted that was made under him, and the Compendium of Social Doctrine made under him). It is even verified in this very passage to me when it refers to reducing people to productive value or disregarding their personal dignity (which the Law never did). It may just be a difference in reading though.

 

[Abaxvahl]

The whole thing of slavery- still common in the USS- is that you don't
get choices.

Very true, and I did not mention a choice.

 

[Astrid]

Very true, and I did not mention a choice.

Your position on slavery, and Noah's ark frm, need a lot more thought.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Your position on slavery, and Noah's ark frm, need a lot more thought.

I've given a lot of thought to my position on slavery with much debate and reading. As for Noah's Ark indeed it does need more and I will gain it over time.

 

[Astrid]

I've given a lot of thought to my position on slavery with much debate and reading. As for Noah's Ark indeed it does need more and I will gain it over time.

The impression we get is that you are sitting on the fence.

It's wrong but you'd go for it under undisclosed circumstances.

 

[public hermit]

Well my objection is not that love suffers from epistemic limitations. Of course it does, but no more than anything else.

So again, the claim is that love is not substantive and sufficient in itself without an adequate notion of the good. In this post you include various notions of the good, such as the idea that others want the same things we want and that they should get what they want, or that they should not be harmed, or that they should not be coerced, etc. But if someone does not agree with you about what is good then they could love while, say, harming. Love in itself is a very thin notion that is primarily about one's intention. In a society where the good is commonly agreed upon we can use the word without thinking about it, but that is because we have a shared notion of the good, and this is not always true.

Let's back up for a moment. I was very clear that I was speaking to my own practice. If you are suggesting I should abandon that, I appreciate the concern, but that's not going to happen. If you see what I was talking about as inadequate, I am not suggesting it for you. You have lot of questions and you are super smart; I'm sure you will figure it all out.

Again, I don't think it will definitively exclude hardly any behaviors. For example, you say that "love causes no harm" (which is a rule, by the way: a roundabout way of saying 'do not harm'). Yet when faced with the Trolley Problem you have claimed that murder is sometimes morally necessary. There can be no doubt that murder is harmful, and yet you defended your position on the basis of love.

Now it may seem strange to hear someone say that sometimes to be loving means to be a murderer, but I don't find it strange at all. When people talk about what is "loving" they are generally just talking about what they think is best, and in your case you see consequentialism as best or most loving, which includes justifiable murder. In the end these moralities based on "love" seem to be quite flimsy, and they don't seem to be any different from any other morality. I don't see any difference between a consequentialist and a love-consequentialist (and maybe the "love morality" is just a fancy way of dressing up intuitionist consequentialism).

We disagree on the Trolley Problem as I can clearly see from the way you've framed this as murder by default. Even if this pertained to the thread topic, there would be little point in our discussing it. But it's nice to know I'm remembered for something.

Well this is a big topic, but you are essentially saying that sometimes rules are inapplicable and therefore we should focus on love. I like the Aristotelian approach. According to Aristotle prudence is required to apply the various rules, and the guiding principle is primarily justice, not love. The basic problem is that rules are never dispensed with. In the Nazi example you are merely substituting a rule against murder (or cooperating with murder) for a rule against lying, and claiming that the murder rule takes precedence. That's fine, but the operative principle is prudence in knowing how to apply the correct rule and knowing the hierarchy of rules. It's not an anti-rule approach.

I appreciate the lesson in Aristotle, I'm more of a fan of Plato.

 

[zippy2006]

Let's back up for a moment. I was very clear that I was speaking to my own practice. If you are suggesting I should abandon that, I appreciate the concern, but that's not going to happen. If you see what I was talking about as inadequate, I am not suggesting it for you. You have lot of questions and you are super smart; I'm sure you will figure it all out.

Internet forums are for discussing one's views with others. If you do not want a view to be subjected to critique then it would be wise not to present it on an internet forum, particularly in the "discussion and debate" section.

I think it's worthwhile talking about whether "love" functions as a sufficient morality. If you don't, that's fine.

We disagree on the Trolley Problem as I can clearly see from the way you've framed this as murder by default. Even if this pertained to the thread topic, there would be little point in our discussing it. But it's nice to know I'm remembered for something.

I don't believe there was anything misleading about my summary. In this post you implied that in some cases we need to kill (innocent) people and get over our aversion to murder.

I appreciate the lesson in Aristotle, I'm more of a fan of Plato.

I don't think there's much difference between the two on this point. In any case, the unexamined morality is not worth having.