How do you justify moral actions?

[The happy Objectivist]

you can't prove that what you see is real without it. Well, I guess we'll end the discussion here. It does make most people feel uncomfortable thinking about it.

Yeah, I don't hold discussions with solipsists, anal. Phil., Subjectivists, or anyone who denies a basic axiom. There's no point. But I'll leave you with this; you are at least fully consistent as a Christian with your subjectivism. You are the only one I have met that is. So you are the model for other Christians to follow.

 

[Jonaitis]

Yeah, I don't hold discussions with solipsists, anal.

You don't seem to know what that term means. I haven't stated such a position, although it is related.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

You don't seem to know what that term means. I haven't stated such a position, although it is related.

I said or anyone who denies a basic axiom. You deny the axiom of the primacy of existence.

 

[Jonaitis]

I said or anyone who denies a basic axiom. You deny the axiom of the primacy of existence.

I don't see how I deny the axiom if I am stating what is clearly intuitively known.

 

[rjs330]

If something is good, it's worth doing whether or not there is a reward in the hereafter.

What is good?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I don't see how I deny the axiom if I am stating what is clearly intuitively known.

You do so by affirming the primacy of consciousness. Christianity explicitly affirms the primacy of consciousness and in doing so it performatively affirms the primacy of existence. It's a contradiction at the beginning of knowledge. Most Christians and people for that matter don't know that they do this. You do, which is why I said you are the most consistent Christian that I have met.

 

[Jonaitis]

You do so by affirming the primacy of consciousness. Christianity explicitly affirms the primacy of consciousness and in doing so it performatively affirms the primacy of existence. It's a contradiction at the beginning of knowledge. Most Christians and people for that matter don't know that they do this. You do, which is why I said you are the most consistent Christian that I have met.

This is irrelevant, but what if I also said that I hold that theism and atheism are both correct, but are wrong about each other, would that be a inconsistency in your opinion? And I don't mean agnosticism. Some call this position 'transtheism,' and is found in many Eastern philosophies.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

If it's all an illusion, there's nothing that is right or wrong. Those concepts presuppose the primacy of the object.

 

[Jonaitis]

If it's all an illusion, there's nothing that is right or wrong. Those concepts presuppose the primacy of the object.

I don't see an inconsistency in those two views. An illusion still implies an underlying reality behind it, even if it isn't an "object," nor can be said to be good or evil, which implies the illusion of dualism. We would say that it is, because this is, but does not objectively exist. We can apply morality accordingly.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think whether God exists or not would be relevant to what is ethical. I don't accept divine command ethics as relevant when it involves questions of duties to ones fellow human beings.

That's ok. I don't accept divine command ethics either. So we have that in common.

The upshot is this, however: since I think Human Rights are non-axiomatic, I probably NEED MORE by which to 'be' a moral person than you do.

 

[FireDragon76]

What is good?

Helping people, not harming them.

 

[rjs330]

Helping people, not harming them.

Not what acts you think are good. What IS good.

 

[Zoii]

Amen. I'm coming from a Christian perspective in which a universal morality exists. The question is more aimed towards the non theists.

The atheist argument is that doing good is its own reward. It cares not if it is remembered a millennium later.

You're argument seems to be that Christians do good, because they seek a reward and want to avoid punishment ie want to go to heaven and not hell.

 

[FireDragon76]

Not what acts you think are good. What IS good.

Good is relative to the situation.

 

[Larniavc]

Yeah, I get what you're saying, but all we're left with then is the idea that you think slavery is evil, not that slavery is indeed evil.

Many Christians on this site have argued that slavery was fine and consequently not evil.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Many Christians on this site have argued that slavery was fine and consequently not evil.

In such a case, I usually find it best to corner them and identify exactly which theological framework they say they're working from (or even loosely think they're working from) before proceeding to talk about a topic like the ethical qualities of 'slavery.' Otherwise, we may be talking past them while using the same words.

But yeah, in a worldview that is theologically driven and contains such notions as sin and curses, among other concepts not resident within modern Humanistic or Liberal philosophy, slavery could be defined as a "political disadvantage" that is bad rather than a pure evil (whatever evil is...)

 

[The happy Objectivist]

The atheist argument is that doing good is its own reward. It cares not if it is remembered a millennium later.

You're argument seems to be that Christians do good, because they seek a reward and want to avoid punishment ie want to go to heaven and not hell.

Can I get an atheist amen?

On a side note, That woman's children will not die from climate change. The single greatest threat to the world, more dangerous than nuclear war, more dangerous than covid, far more dangerous than any other threat that we face other than a large asteroid strike, is the massive, gigantic bubble in the debt market that is currently popping worldwide. When it does finally go, nobody will be talking about anything else because they will be too busy trying to find food because there won't be any more deliveries to the stores. You'll have what you can hunt or grow and you'll have to defend it from those desperate to take it and you can thank the morality of altruism for this, because it was in the name of "helping the poor" that this was done. Of course, that was only a pretense as the morality of altruism is just a pretense for pillaging the productive. /rant off

 

[Paulos23]

Insisting that anyone "should be" doing anything requires more substance than merely the relative outcome of results. Morality, for it to be of universal significance and social potency, really needs a metaphysical substantiation to avoid being more than just a cultural, or even just a pedestrian, form of pragmatics. As for people changing their morals in order to change culture: that idea in and of itself only qualifies as social activism rather than a full-fledged morality working itself out from some identifiable Ethical System of thought.

When we acctulaly get a god coming down to give us our moral directives, we could have metaphysical substantiation. But we haven't, and things are changing quickly here on Earth, so we must adjust instead of waiting for word from on high.

I understand the desire to have morals backed by some authority, but how do you tell the authority is moral?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When we acctulaly get a god coming down to give us our moral directives, you arguement would be weight. But we haven't, and things are changing quickly here on Earth, so we must ajust instead of waiting for word from on high.

Yes, you're exactly right, Paulos, but honestly I wasn't attempting to make an argument so much as to offer an axiological clarification of my points. As you've said, God isn't showing up in the way we'd like for Him to-- assuming He even exists--and I readily agree with you that this absence makes it 'seem' like we need to come up with our own ethical answers. It's just that all things considered, and being existentially belabored as I am, I choose to "go with Jesus," as cliche as that may sound.

I understand the desire to have morals backed by some authority, but how do you tell the authority is moral?

That's always a pertinent question and I think it proves my earlier point; however, I also think it suffers from being caught in a vicious semantic circle and it would be more potent for us to ask: How do we clearly discern that any authority is truly moral? Surely we can't answer either your question or my question through pure pragmatics. It might even be that neither you or I can answer either question.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is irrelevant, but what if I also said that I hold that theism and atheism are both correct, but are wrong about each other, would that be a inconsistency in your opinion? And I don't mean agnosticism. Some call this position 'transtheism,' and is found in many Eastern philosophies.

And Meister Eckhart, or Jakob Boehme, BTW.

God is just a grid over which people see the world, and a spiritual ideal. But God is no more real, and no less so, than the narrative of "me" and "you".