Morality

[miknik5]

In the ancient Greek culture of Aristotle and Plato - deserting an unwanted infant on the side of a mountain was considered morally acceptable.

really?

So much for the "great" philosophers of that age!

Apparently, no one was listening to their "wisdom"

And if this is the "wisdom" they offered, who would?

 

[Dave-W]

And can you rephrase this without the double-negative?

No. It was argued that a world view was based on what someone believes, rather than what they do not believe. The double negative is needed to put a positive belief that a god does not or cannot exist. (or if he/she/it does exist, it has no effect on our existence)

 

[Dave-W]

really?
So much for the "great" philosophers of that age!
Apparently, no one was listening to their "wisdom"
And if this is the "wisdom" they offered, who would?

Yes really.

And it Sparta it went farther - it was not the parents who decided, it was the city leaders. Plutarch wrote that the elders of Sparta inspected every child born and only allowed the largest and healthiest to live. The rest were ordered to be abandoned on a hillside.

As to the "great philosophers," read this:

In his writing “Theaetetus”, the Greek philosopher Plato quoted Socrates saying that children with any defects should be killed: “For we must take care that we don’t overlook some defect in this thing that is entering into life; it may be something not worth bringing up, a wind-egg, a falsehood. What do you say? Is it your opinion that your child ought in any case to be brought up and not exposed to die? Can you bear to see it found fault with and not get into a rage if your first-born is stolen away from you?”

Socrates argues here that we should murder newborn babies with any physical defects so they can avoid other people finding fault with them.

In his play “Ion”, the ancient Greek dramatist Euripides (485-406 B.C.) had his main female character named Kreusa (Kre) discuss with her female slave known as Old Servant (O.S.) the fact that Kreusa exposed her unwanted baby to death. Kreusa was Queen of Athens and the wife of Xuthus, the king-consort of Athens. Euripides’ words illustrate another excuse ancient Greeks used to murder their unwanted new-borns:

O.S. And how didst thou conceal Apollo’s rape?
Kre. I travailed – bear to hear my tale, old friend!
O.S. Who tended thee?…alone in trial’s hour!
Kre. Alone within the cave that saw my rape.
O.S. And the boy, where? – that thou no more be childless.
Kre. Dead is he, ancient – unto beasts cast out.
O.S. Dead? – and Apollo, traitor! helped thee nought?
Kre. Helped not. The child is nursed in Hades’ halls.
O.S. Who cast him forth? – Not thou – O never thou!
Kre. Even I. My vesture darkling swaddled him.
O.S. Nor any knew the exposing of the child?
Kre. None – Misery and Secrecy alone.
O.S. How couldst thou leave thy babe within the cave?
Kre. Ah how? – O pitiful farewells I moaned!
O.S. Poor heart of steel! – O God’s heart harder yet!
Kre. Ah, hadst thou seen the babe’s hands stretched to me!
O.S. Seeking the breast, or cradle of thine arms?
Kre. Where he lay not, and so had wrong of me.
O.S. And in what hope didst thou cast forth the babe?
Kre. That the God yet would save him – his own child.

Killing Newborns In Ancient Greece And Rome

 

[miknik5]

Yes really.

And it Sparta it went farther - it was not the parents who decided, it was the city leaders. Plutarch wrote that the elders of Sparta inspected every child born and only allowed the largest and healthiest to live. The rest were ordered to be abandoned on a hillside.

As to the "great philosophers," read this:


Killing Newborns In Ancient Greece And Rome

No

I'm not interested in reading this

 

[KCfromNC]

No. It was argued that a world view was based on what someone believes, rather than what they do not believe. The double negative is needed to put a positive belief that a god does not or cannot exist. (or if he/she/it does exist, it has no effect on our existence)

As I mentioned before, such a belief is compatible with atheism but not required by it.

 

[-V-]

You're switching between belief and ontology here. Is that intentional?

Ontology:
1: a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being; Ontology deals with abstract entities.
2: a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence

source: merriam-webster . com

Well, since the definition of ontology seems to include the kind of beliefs we’re talking about, I don’t see what your objection is.

When I say 'you do not know what I as an atheist thinks' what makes you think you know what I think better than I do?

Straw man fallacy.

I’m not telling anyone what they think. I’m telling them whether or not what they think is consistent with their theological stance. Quite a difference.

Now you're just being childish.
Late teen existential angst, is it?

Nonsense. The statements you make have no substantiation. You're not doing anything but claiming I don't understand. Therefore, your logic justifies the exact same statements being used against you. If that is "childish", then I suggest you stop using childish arguments.

I said that we had developed the ability to empathise with the pain of others. You said that was an opinion. Go back and read your own words. It isn't an opinion...it is a well researched piece of biological and psychological understanding.

I have read it, and you are the one who is misreading.

Feelings that are the result of an evolved trait. So what?

So, they are subjective and arbitrary.

Black-white thinking. Your view seems to be that ALL morality is either 'objective' or 'subjective'. As is often the case in human behaviour, 'one size doesn't fit all'. There are aspects of human morality that are very objective in nature, in that they are tied to outcomes which have limited variability...eg, that humans will seek to avoid/minimise pain is an almost universal truth, so several of our 'rules' for behaviour are tied to this and are unlikely to change much over time. Others are more nuanced in their bases and will flex over time...think of the morality behind slavery, the treatment of women, the plight of the poor, etc.

From an atheistic viewpoint, NONE of it is objective. That most humans avoid pain does not make it objective. If most humans liked chocolate over vanilla, that does not make chocolate objectively better than vanilla. It remains a subjective opinion no matter how many people agree.

Your understanding of the basis for morality is as poor as some here about what an atheist is….

Another subjective opinion. Thanks for sharing.

Wrong. But don't feel bad...this is the most common error made by those who try to tell atheists what it is they believe, rather than asking...!

You can try and split hairs anyway you like. It won't change the fact that atheists believe there is no god. If they then want to make moral claims, the only way for them to be consistent is to begin with the premise that there is no god. And the only moral position that is consistent with no gods existing is that morality is subjective and arbitrary, nothing more than personal opinions.

You are so wrong...

Sure, cuz you say so.

Mr V, compare these two statements...
'I do not believe in the existence of any gods'.
'No gods exist'.
Do you see a difference...?

In the context of this discussion, that is splitting hairs and makes no meaningful difference whatsoever.

Still waiting for you to correctly identify a single one.

Then you’re not following the discussion. I DID identify one back in post 187.

The rest of your post is just more of the same unsubstantiated nonsensical thinly-veiled insults. If you have nothing else, I’m done responding to you.

No, it just requires anyone to define something as the arbiter of morals. Just like you do.

Once again, no, you can’t simply “define something”. That thing you define has to be consistent with atheism. And you have yet to define such a thing.

 

[quatona]

Once again, no, you can’t simply “define something”.

Since you can do it, I can do it, too. (Personally, I´d prefer if we both abstained from doing it, but since you seem hellbent to take that approach....)

That thing you define has to be consistent with atheism.

Everything except for Gods is consistent with atheism.

And you have yet to define such a thing.

I have given you examples. So have others.

 

[-V-]

Since you can do it, I can do it, too. (Personally, I´d prefer if we both abstained from doing it, but since you seem hellbent to take that approach....)

The difference is that MINE is CONSISTENT with theism/Christianity. You haven't given anything consistent with atheism.

Everything except for Gods is consistent with atheism.

False.

I have given you examples. So have others.

And, as I've said, none of those examples have been consistent with atheism. You guys are certainly CLAIMING they're consistent with atheism, but none of you have substantiated those claims yet.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don’t see what your objection is.

That mid-stream you switched from talking about beliefs to talking about knowledge. Since atheism is only about one of those it was curious you'd try to steer the discussion elsewhere.

 

[KCfromNC]

The difference is that MINE is CONSISTENT with theism/Christianity. You haven't given anything consistent with atheism.

As has been mentioned multiple times, anything that isn't a god belief is consistent with atheism.

 

[-V-]

That mid-stream you switched from talking about beliefs to talking about knowledge. Since atheism is only about one of those it was curious you'd try to steer the discussion elsewhere.

As already shown, the definition of ontology includes the beliefs we're discussing, so I still don't see any valid objection here.

As has been mentioned multiple times, anything that isn't a god belief is consistent with atheism.

As has been mentioned multiple times, that is false.

For example, one of you tried to claim nature as an objective source of morality. However, there is absolutely no justification for nature being an objective source from an atheistic viewpoint. So, no, simply not being a god belief does not automatically make it consistent with atheism.

 

[Larniavc]

In an atheistic view, the only consistent conclusion is that morality doesn't exist. There is no good or evil. If there is no good or evil, then actions can not be good or evil. If actions are neither good nor evil, they are neither moral nor immoral.

I thought I'd go back to the first of your posts.

As an atheist I conclude that morals exist and can do so without objectivity.

As an atheist I conclude that good and evil exist and can do so without objectivity.

You see, I know that morals are not objective and I'm perfectly happy with my own little moral code.

Think of it as a 'moral space' which I and like minded people inhabit.

I guess everyone has a 'moral space' that they have: we're all individuals after all.

 

[quatona]

The difference is that MINE is CONSISTENT with theism/Christianity. You haven't given anything consistent with atheism.

Yes, I have. You ignored it - as was to be expected.

False.

Ipse dixit.

 

[-V-]

I thought I'd go back to the first of your posts.
As an atheist I conclude that morals exist and can do so without objectivity.
As an atheist I conclude that good and evil exist and can do so without objectivity.
You see, I know that morals are not objective and I'm perfectly happy with my own little moral code.
Think of it as a 'moral space' which I and like minded people inhabit.
I guess everyone has a 'moral space' that they have: we're all individuals after all.

You want to believe it exists, fine. But starting with the premise of atheism, morality is only subjective and arbitrary.

 

[-V-]

Yes, I have. You ignored it - as was to be expected.

Then give the post number.

 

[quatona]

For example, one of you tried to claim nature as an objective source of morality. However, there is absolutely no justification for nature being an objective source from an atheistic viewpoint.

Earlier you insisted you didn´t want to discuss the justification - you just want to discuss the consistency of the claim with theism or atheism. Nature and atheism are consistent. So there.

So, no, simply not being a god belief does not automatically make it consistent with atheism.

Nature and atheism are consistent.

 

[-V-]

Earlier you insisted you didn´t want to discuss the justification - you just want to discuss the consistency of the claim with theism or atheism.

Reference needed.

Nature and atheism are consistent. So there.

Nature being an objective source is NOT consistent with atheism.

 

[Larniavc]

morality is only subjective and arbitrary.

So what?

I don't see how this is a problem. I and many like minded people can cope with that stance.

Where exactly, is the beef?

 

[Larniavc]

Nature being an objective source is NOT consistent with atheism.

Dunno about that. In what way is it not consistent with not believing in the existance of gods?

 

[KCfromNC]

As already shown, the definition of ontology includes the beliefs we're discussing, so I still don't see any valid objection here.

Still doesn't explain the jump from beliefs to knowledge claims you made.

For example, one of you tried to claim nature as an objective source of morality. However, there is absolutely no justification for nature being an objective source from an atheistic viewpoint.

Sure there is. I'm an atheist and I defined it that way, just like you as a theist defined your god as a source of morality. I don't think either is a reasonable approach but I'm just trying to be consistent with the standards laid out here in the thread.