Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yeah, it's everywhere. Jesus didn't say that hey, this is my suggestion for living a moral life. He was reminding us of it.It's fascinating to me that some form of the golden rule shows up in most major religions and a number of philosophical outlooks.
Yeah, it's everywhere. Jesus didn't say that hey, this is my suggestion for living a moral life. He was reminding us of it.
Atheists are generally modernists, and in that tradition self-preservation and social compact is the basis of morality. Deviations from this are ephemeral, and are usually based on the vestiges of Christian culture.
Kant, Plato, and even Aristotle tend to be too "transcendent" for modern atheistic tastes. Hobbes is really their cornerstone. The only rigorous case for naturalistic ethics in recent history comes from R. M. Hare, but that line was largely not taken up. Rawls is culturally important, but he really collapses back into Hobbes.
Edit: See, for example, Shelly Kagan's contractarianism (9:40).
In what sense would you argue that he was a Kantian? He was surely influenced by Kant.
We agree that Rawls and Hobbes are both social contractarians, and we also agree that Rawls is more Kantian than Hobbes. But I'm not convinced that Rawls' grounds draw very near to Kant. As I understand Rawls, he bootstraps his ethical reasoning at the level of cultural intuitions, and does not attempt to transcend those cultural intuitions. That is, he does not attempt to offer a cross-cultural ethical program. I could try to substantiate this, but maybe we're not so interested in this topic.Rawls was a Kantian in the sense that he posited that one has to attempt a transcendental apprehension of grounds for supplying the ethical imperative. Rawls differed, then, in how he substantiated the premise by which to apprehend the imperative for social agreement.
Yes, and that may be a more fertile resource for atheists and naturalists. I just haven't seen it being given much attention at a popular level.This is one reason I mentioned R.M. Hare in my previous post. I rather like his little book, Sorting Out Ethics, where he posits that ethics can take on shades of an amalgamation of both utilitarianism and deontology, as odd that that may sound.
I think the issue you’re having is an apparent belief that people cannot be moral without a directive telling them how to be moral or avoid immorality, less you get a punishment.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?
We agree that Rawls and Hobbes are both social contractarians, and we also agree that Rawls is more Kantian than Hobbes. But I'm not convinced that Rawls' grounds draw very near to Kant. As I understand Rawls, he bootstraps his ethical reasoning at the level of cultural intuitions, and does not attempt to transcend those cultural intuitions.
I agree, and that is one of the primary gripes his critics have had of his Theory of Justice-----that his theory of justice is still "too Western" in nature. And that's about a deep as I want to go in discussing Rawls here. So yeah, I'm not so interested in this topic and we can set Rawls to the side.That is, he does not attempt to offer a cross-cultural ethical program. I could try to substantiate this, but maybe we're not so interested in this topic.
Yes, and that may be a more fertile resource for atheists and naturalists. I just haven't seen it being given much attention at a popular level.
Religion is the repository of, and enforcement element for, many moral facts that are so sensible that they persist across cultures, times, faiths.Well as many atheist come from a religious background. The answers they give will still be tainted from their past Biblical background.
I dont think its the rule book itself that keeps religious people in line so much as the formalization of the "higher witness" side of yourself in the person of God.I think the issue you’re having is an apparent belief that people cannot be moral without a directive telling them how to be moral or avoid immorality, less you get a punishment.
Just because atheists can’t point to a rule book doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of making intentionally moral decisions.
I dont think its the rule book itself that keeps religious people in line so much as the formalization of the "higher witness" side of yourself in the person of God.
I think we all have this capacity to see ourselves honestly, observe our own motivations, check whether or not intention and action align with moral facts. (These moral facts may be culturally or biologically conditioned, personally intuited, written on our hearts by a creator, whatever). But this "witness" is easily overwhelmed by drives to affirm, assert, and satisfy ones self.
Monotheism, and especially Christianity, is expert at taking this capacity for self reflection and formalizing it into an "always on" figure who exists outside our own tendencies to ignore the quiet inner voice. The technologies of religion continuously cultivate awareness of this figure - with the goal being that I become aware of a watcher of the state of my heart at every decision point.
Religion is the repository of, and enforcement element for, many moral facts that are so sensible that they persist across cultures, times, faiths.
If religion goes away, these moral facts remain sensible. But we've lost an important tool for overcoming peoples overly self-centered impulses.
I dont believe I said or implied that. In fact I literally said the opposite.Christians do not have the corner on the market that is self-reflection. I don’t know why you’d think that because one is atheist they don’t have the capability to examine themselves and lives.
So if you get how one can be atheist and be a moral person…I dont believe I said or implied that. In fact I literally said the opposite.
I just noted how monotheism has a great tool for helping self reflection.
So if you get how one can be atheist and be a moral person…
But what determines that it is a moral choice if there is no "rule book"?I think the issue you’re having is an apparent belief that people cannot be moral without a directive telling them how to be moral or avoid immorality, less you get a punishment.
Just because atheists can’t point to a rule book doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of making intentionally moral decisions.
If you do "good" (or abstain from "bad") because of a rule book, you are not moral, just obedient. In fact, you don't even know if you're moral; you just know you are obedient.But what determines that it is a moral choice if there is no "rule book"?
Im just saying religious people have a great tool to help with this, especially monotheists - I think.So if you get how one can be atheist and be a moral person…
If you do "good" (or abstain from "bad") because of a rule book, you are not moral, just obedient. In fact, you don't even know if you're moral; you just know you are obedient.
If you have determined that rule book has moral value, then it is you who have decided what is moral.
If they are so sensible then why do they require a repository and enforcement mechanism?Religion is the repository of, and enforcement element for, many moral facts that are so sensible that they persist across cultures, times, faiths.
If religion goes away, these moral facts remain sensible. But we've lost an important tool for overcoming peoples overly self-centered impulses.
Now I think you've been listening to Jordan Peterson.I dont think its the rule book itself that keeps religious people in line so much as the formalization of the "higher witness" side of yourself in the person of God.
So how do I become moral?If you do "good" (or abstain from "bad") because of a rule book, you are not moral, just obedient.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?