Dave Ellis
Contributor
- Dec 27, 2011
- 8,933
- 821
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Upvote
0
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.
A most thorough, heartfelt, and respectable response. I sincerely thank you for sharing that with me and all the others.
For the record: I am not saying this.
While abstract general prescriptions (like e.g. "avoid harming others unnecessarily") may be pretty much agreed on instinctively by almost everyone, it gets increasingly complicated the more we are to decide how such general prescriptions are carried out in a given situation or in detail.
As for your basic question ("Why even consinder anything but the immediate satisfaction of your momentary desires when you believe your existence is finite?"):
Personally, I consider this existence the pool we all are swimming in. I don´t like to swim in pee. Therefore I am not going to pee in the pool I´m swimming in.
Yes, it´s not like we are in Heaven where "eating, drinking and being merry" come with no undesirable consequences, is it?Or going back to his earlier posts of eat, drink and be merry....
But if I drink too much I wake up with a hangover. If I eat too mcuh I end up fatter. Other types of merry making have similar costs.
If I kick my dog when he is bothersome instead of showing kindness I end up with a danger to myself instead of the dog I have that will defend me with his dying breath.
I will enjoy my wine, beer and spirits, but in moderation so I can savor them and wake at least well enough to enjoy them again tommorrow. I will show at least enough moderation in food to enjoy most of it and not rob myself of years of life. And I will treat my dog well because he deserves it and if I did otherwise I'd have trouble looking in a mirror.
My point exactly. You and every other person who wants to be a law unto themselves need only deny the existence of objective moral standards and values and then plug into the equation whatever agrees with your heart's desire. This becomes your morality, this becomes your value.
You are taking the place of God, which you reject as existing, and make yourself to be god.
But we can agree that life, specifically, human life is exceedingly precious and should not be violated. Upon this we can build.
Hopefully I can make it a bit more clearer by saying this: If a theist for example, seeks to do away with the objective moral standards and values which they affirm as being prescribed by God, and plug in his or her own values and morals (whatever they might be), he is acting in willfull contradiction to the prescribed objective moral standard. In other words, the objective moral standard still makes a claim upon the person, they just refuse to adhere to it.
On the other hand: when one who does not believe in God denies the existence of objective moral standards and plugs in his or her own values and standards, they are acting in accordance with their view of life.
More likely, they'll claim their subjective interpretation of the alleged objective moral code is correct and other interpretations are wrong.
Which in effect looks very similar to the theist case. Maybe if you had evidence of these objective moral codes that people were obviously willfully violating it would be easier to see the difference, but right now I'm not.
So you do not believe in the existence of any objective moral standards. Is that what you are saying?
That would make sense... there's nothing to show that morality is objective in any way.
And the majority of the world's population if asked about their view on child abuse, or rape or, genocide, or murder would say:
The vast majority would likely say it's bad.... but not everyone.
That is evidence of a commonly held subjective viewpoint. Not an objective one.
They would disagree.
Where is the objectivity here?
I guess one could ask: why these specific "acts" are commonly held as being reprehensible on an undeniably consistent basis, and not others?
An objective moral value is a value or standard that is binding upon all people, in all places, at all times. It is binding which means that it is a prescription. Because some ( a very miniscule minority ) do not adhere to it or agree with it, does not mean that it is not binding. Just because some people like raping others and thereby go against the law does not mean that that somehow makes the law nonapplicable to them. You are suggesting the necessity of adherence as an indispensable prerequiste for objectivity. This is not the case. It remains objective whehter all agree, whether all disagree, or whether some agree.
An objective moral value is a value or standard that is binding upon all people, in all places, at all times. It is binding which means that it is a prescription. Because some ( a very miniscule minority ) do not adhere to it or agree with it, does not mean that it is not binding. Just because some people like raping others and thereby go against the law does not mean that that somehow makes the law nonapplicable to them. You are suggesting the necessity of adherence as an indispensable prerequiste for objectivity. This is not the case. It remains objective whehter all agree, whether all disagree, or whether some agree.
An objective moral value is a value or standard that is binding upon all people, in all places, at all times. It is binding which means that it is a prescription. Because some ( a very miniscule minority ) do not adhere to it or agree with it, does not mean that it is not binding. Just because some people like raping others and thereby go against the law does not mean that that somehow makes the law nonapplicable to them. You are suggesting the necessity of adherence as an indispensable prerequiste for objectivity. This is not the case. It remains objective whehter all agree, whether all disagree, or whether some agree.
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?