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.
Im just saying religious people have a great tool to help with this, especially monotheists - I think.
I do wonder if the tool really gets used tho, given publicly visible behaviors.
Okay, fair enough.On this point you're essentially correct. But do keep in mind that Rawls specifically defines his "theory of justice" as following in the tracks of Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. In fact, even though he doesn't articulate his theory of "The Original Position" in terms that express a specific Kantian sort of transcendentally tempered idealism, i.e. a seeming necessary inference toward Moral Divinity in order to provide the conceptual collateral his theory needs, Rawls does posit the abstract concept of "The Veil of Ignorance" as a [supposedly] natural, rational rule of arbitration to bank and regulate his theory of justice.
Oh, I didn't know he was Catholic or even Christian.Plus, I'm sure that if some Secular folks find out that R.M. Hare is Catholic, and that he posits his religious belief as an ambiguous "blik," they think he comes off as being too speculative and fails to meet their more evidentially and evolutionary constructed demands.
Everybody does. (for themselves)But what determines that it is a moral choice if there is no "rule book"?
Oh, I didn't know he was Catholic or even Christian.
Quite relevant.However, R.M. Hare's son, John E. Hare, is a Christian Philosopher (see the link below). So, that's interesting.
God and Morality: A Philosophical History - Christian Scholar’s Review
God and Morality: A Philosophical History John E. Hare Published by Wiley-Blackwell in 2007 pp / $ / Amazon Goodreads Modern philosophical ethics have tried often to show how ethics can be independent of theology—with limited success. John Hare is a Christian philosopher, currently holding the...christianscholars.com
Everybody does. (for themselves)
Moral relativism/subjectivism then. No wonder we have so much disagreement.Everybody does. (for themselves)
You do.... but who gets to define what either a "moral" or an "immoral" person is?
I assume that you agree with whatever Christian set of values you subscribe to. In other words you decided that they were correct. You agreed with them. I can't imagine that you would subscribe to a set of values with which you didn't agree.Without an absolute set of values for morality...
You refrain because you agree with the rule. If you didn't, you'd ignore it (unless you were worried about being punished).So, if I decide to refrain from that special sin because a rule book I respect tells me to, even though my personal fancy would wish to do otherwise, I think it's safe to say I count as a "moral" agent at that moment...
I personally don't care where they come from. As long as they make sense (to me) then any source will do.I think we need moral standards that do not involve religions.
So you think that the only reason anyone would follow a rule is for fear of punishment? If they refrain it is because they personally decided to refrain or because they agree with the rule, not because they followed the rule. And if they don't agree with the rule then they will ignore it, sans punishment. So on your view the rule doesn't affect anyone's behavior whatsoever, unless it threatens a punishment.You refrain because you agree with the rule. If you didn't, you'd ignore it (unless you were worried about being punished).
Sensible means it appeals to reason. Reason is easily overthrown by appetite or emotion.If they are so sensible then why do they require a repository and enforcement mechanism?
Most certainly not! Im not at all well read in philosophy. So my ideas are typically my own.....for better or worse.Now I think you've been listening to Jordan Peterson.
I get to decide for myself which moral principles I need to live by? Wow. That's a new revelation to me. I'll try to remember that next time I encounter a stop light.You do.
Actually, it's sort of difficult to simply "agree" with whatever Christian set of values I find in the Bible ... when subscribing requires an ontology to back the alleged ethical framework behind the moral prescriptions. I don't believe Adam and Eve were real people, ...........I assume that you agree with whatever Christian set of values you subscribe to. In other words you decided that they were correct. You agreed with them. I can't imagine that you would subscribe to a set of values with which you didn't agree.
You'll note that the second person singular was used 6 times then.
You refrain because you agree with the rule. If you didn't, you'd ignore it (unless you were worried about being punished).
No, I meant that if you followed it then you personally must have agreed that it's a valid rule. Which is what we all do.So you think that the only reason anyone would follow a rule is for fear of punishment?
What point is there having a rule that doesn't apply?If they refrain it is because they personally decided to refrain...
I can't parse this sentence....or because they agree with the rule, not because they followed the rule.
Let me list the options.And if they don't agree with the rule then they will ignore it, sans punishment. So on your view the rule doesn't affect anyone's behavior whatsoever, unless it threatens a punishment.
I'll assume you'll stop because you don't want to kill someone else, be killed yourself or get a ticket. Who makes that moral choice?I get to decide for myself which moral principle I get to live by? Wow. That's a new revelation to me. I'll try to remember that next time I encounter a stop light.
I'm not. We're talking about rules already in place and whether you agree with them. I'll say that again...whether you agree with them. Nobody gets to decide for you.Actually, it's sort of difficult to simply "agree" with whatever Christian set of values I find in the Bible ... when subscribing requires an ontology to back the alleged ethical framework behind the moral prescriptions. I don't believe Adam and Eve were real people, ...........
........... so NO, I didn't merely decide myself, let alone by myself, as to what should be moral or immoral without some amount of inquiry into what other people (or a God) may also think, or into how my decisions and actions comport with the structure of reality around me.
Let's not conflate an instance of a personal but still educated moral decision with one made in the vacuum of a self made solipsism.
Indeed it does. It emphasises that it's you that makes the decisions. No-one else is involved.I'm not sure that keeping a count of this type helps your argument here, Bradskii.
No, but that's how I see it.So are atheists limited to "moral subjectivism" (which is commonly recognized to be not-morality-at-all)?
What does it mean for a rule to apply? You make it sound like a rule is a suggestion. "If you agree with it, then take its advice. If you don't agree with it, ignore it."What point is there having a rule that doesn't apply?
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?