Morality

[Khalliqa]

Then you agree with my assessment of atheism. Nothing else is needed.

Partially yes. I spent time explaining that it is important not to isolate an atheist which is inherently not a body of people but just a position and realize that the scope of the word does not require an inherent framework irrespective of belief.. this applies to all those who claim it. I understand it is convenient for you to ignore that part. I'm hoping you won't be closed to the full response. But, I get it if you feel you need to.

But since most people are theist, which includes the belief that rejecting God is immoral, then the consensus is that atheism is itself immoral. Yet atheists deny that. Why does the moral consensus not apply now?

I think it would be good if you can separate the idea of an idea necessitating anything simply because it exists. For instance, if all agree that atheists are evil except one atheist does not make the consensus the best conclusion it doesn't make it the worst conclusion.. it simply is the conclusion.. A valuation of the conclusion would need to be undertaken..

But I'm not making that point.. the consensus makes the conclusion a reality that those who part take in will find hard to disagree with .. because.. peer pressure.. because tradition.. etc.. it makes it a reality and means that all who agree will not be moved to disagree if they found their decisions on tradition and unchallenged thought.. Consensus alone does not justify a moral stance.. It simply is the origin form which it comes and the "framework" which makes it "exist"

Legality can NOT be the standard of morality. The Nazis made laws to legalize what they did. Can we then consider the Nazis to be moral?

While I share your conclusion that legality alone is not and does not seem to be the best stand alone arbiter of morality.. It is the vehicle and shaper of it in many ways.. An enforcement for those who do not challenge thoughts you know such as atheists are immoral.. :-D once enforced by law.. backed by tradition.. and emboldened by authority figures, dogma etc.. simply becomes "truth" to all who adhere..

There are other ways to explore morality and ethics that are not founded on belief.. tradition.. etc..

The process of exercises in reason.. critical thinking (especially using venn diagrams) and open mindedness(aka humility) help us explore the cornerstones of what we value and either strengthen them or weaken them or excising them.. knowing that we are the authors of and the managers of our peace through them..

**random - Okay formatting a response through all those quotes was exhausting.. I'll check back on the board later..

 

[miknik5]

There are only two camps

Those who are for HIM
And those who are against HIM

After that HE judges the man

 

[SPF]

If action X is objectively wrong on a moral level, then that necessarily means that the action is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks, feels, or believes. In fact, if something is objectively morally wrong, then every single person on the planet could believe that the action is good, and they would all be wrong.

The simple reality is that if God does not exist, then there is no foundation upon which any person can authoritatively state that any action X is immoral. Without God as the standard of morality, man has nothing to point to that is objective, and no man possesses more inherent authority than another man.

There can be no objective moral truth when man is the measure of morality. I have yet to see any positive argument that demonstrates how man can point to objective morals if God does not exist.

And again, I don't know why an atheist would even care whether or not objective moral and values exist anyway.

 

[Allandavid]

Your argument fails from the outset as setting up objective moral truth when you say that rape is wrong because "most" of us would not like it to happen. The very fact that you used to word "most" in your post demonstrates that it is not objective.

Yes, "most". All of our moral codes are developed through a social consensus. And, as with any form of consensus, there will be a small minority who do not hold with the prevailing view. Hence, "most".

Moreover, the person doing the raping doesn't think that it is wrong, they find it enjoyable.

How do you know that they don't realise their actions are wrong? Please present your evidence. And I'm not talking about psychopaths exclusively. Show me that people who act immorally don't think that it's wrong.

So on the one hand you have yourself telling the rapist that he is doing something immoral, and you have the rapist saying that it's not immoral because it's enjoyable to him. The problem is that you have no more authority over that man to tell him he's wrong and you're right than he has to tell you that he's right and you're wrong. If man is the measure of morality, then it is necessarily subjective.

When you start with faulty premises, your conclusions fail.

Again, I don't even know why there is a desire from the atheist to attempt to establish objective morals and values.

An atheist develops his moral code from exactly the same source that you do...

 

[Allandavid]

Which, as I just said, is nothing more than your personal, unprovable opinions. Nothing you said refutes that.

No, you're quite wrong. It's a feature of being an evolved human being. As is the case with all primates, we have developed the ability to empathise with others around us. In humans, this ability is more keenly developed. This is not opinion, it is observable and measurable. Do your research.

"Able to empathize" - which means it's immoral simply because you FEEL that it is immoral. What you "feel" is not an objective standard. There are people who have no such empathy with rape - they rape and feel just fine about it. For them, by your standard, rape is completely moral.

No, again you are wrong. "Emapathise" does not mean "feel that it is immoral". It means that you are able to recognise and to identify with the feelings and experiences of others. And yes, there will be some individuals who lack that ability. We usually label them as psychopaths.

Societal instability? You are asserting that societal stability is an objective standard while not substantiating WHY it is an objective standard.

Because we are social animals that have discovered that our lives are more likely to be free of suffering in social groups that operate cohesively. It's not that someone has told us that we must behave this way; we have simply found for ourselves that our lives work better that way.

Why should we just assume that societal instability is immoral? What if I feel that chaos is completely moral? Why am I wrong, other than because you feel that way?

Because you will find yourself shunned, or even removed, from your social group. And, for most people, this will be a less desirable way to live.

 

[quatona]

And yet you still don't provide anything within an atheist framework that allows for any moral standard except one - there are no true moral standards.

Only if you define morality that way, i.e. stacking the deck.

 

[SPF]

Yes, "most". All of our moral codes are developed through a social consensus. And, as with any form of consensus, there will be a small minority who do not hold with the prevailing view. Hence, "most".

There are a number of issues here. First, consensus can change. Second, the fact that you readily admit that there are people that disagree with the consensus. Are you suggesting that morality is determined by popular opinion? So if you were stranded on an island with three people, and 2 of them decided it was morally acceptable to rape you, would that make it ok?

How do you know that they don't realise their actions are wrong? Please present your evidence. And I'm not talking about psychopaths exclusively. Show me that people who act immorally don't think that it's wrong.

You acknowledged in the quote above that people can disagree over the morality of actions.

An atheist develops his moral code from exactly the same source that you do...

I do agree with this, but I would say you derive your sense of morality from an innate understanding of right and wrong VIA your being created in the image of God.

 

[Paradoxum]

How so?

That's a vague question, but if you treat the will of other equally, it should mean you don't violate them, or treat them badly for personal preference.

 

[Soyeong]

That's a vague question, but if you treat the will of other equally, it should mean you don't violate them, or treat them badly for personal preference.

Sorry for being vague. Can you establish that it is a truth about reality that we ought to treat people equally? This is going beyond saying that you value treating people equally to establishing that someone who does not treat people equally is wrong and ought to act according to your values, but that you ought not act according to their values.

 

[SPF]

Allandavid, your "consensus" derived morality also cannot be objective because objective means that something is right or wrong regardless of what people think. If something is objectively wrong, then even if the consensus was that action X was acceptable, the consensus would be wrong.

A model where the consensus establishes morals and values is by its very nature subjective.

 

[Allandavid]

There are a number of issues here. First, consensus can change.

Indeed it can. And we have seen moral codes evolve over time as a result. So...?

Second, the fact that you readily admit that there are people that disagree with the consensus. Are you suggesting that morality is determined by popular opinion?

By consensus.

So if you were stranded on an island with three people, and 2 of them decided it was morally acceptable to rape you, would that make it ok?

Really? You have to resort to such ridiculous analogy to further your argument? Says something about the quality of your argument, don't you think?

But let's play with that a bit...

Yes, in the minds of the other two, raping would be ok. But not for me. And raping used to be an acceptable part of the moral codes of humans at various times in our development. Vikings considered the raping of their conquered peoples to be an appropriate way of establishing their 'seed' in foreign lands. The Old Testament of the bible instructs conquerors to spare virgins and "keep them for yourselves" as being a totally acceptable behaviour. But we have evolved our moral codes since those times.

I do agree with this, but I would say you derive your sense of morality from an innate understanding of right and wrong VIA your being created in the image of God.

And yet you have zero evidence to support such a premise. Whereas, when I assert that our morality has evolved as our species has evolved, I can point to plenty of evidence in support.

 

[Allandavid]

Allandavid, your "consensus" derived morality also cannot be objective because objective means that something is right or wrong regardless of what people think. If something is objectively wrong, then even if the consensus was that action X was acceptable, the consensus would be wrong.

A model where the consensus establishes morals and values is by its very nature subjective.

Use whatever adjective you like. I have heard people describe what I have described as small 'o' objective, in that it is derived regardless of individual personal opinions and reflects the view of the whole.

I really don't care. Even a casual study of history shows that human morality has 'morphed' a number of times and in a number of locations. Just as physical characteristics within species have evolved over time, so have their social behaviours. And morality is nothing more than the rules we establish for social behaviour. NOTE:...."we"....!

Your claim of an "innate" awareness does not stand up. The religion you follow used to consider slavery to be morally acceptable. It even prescribed the rules under which it could be conducted. Find me a church that now condones that. What was "innate" about that understanding?

 

[Paradoxum]

Sorry for being vague. Can you establish that it is a truth about reality that we ought to treat people equally? This is going beyond saying that you value treating people equally to establishing that someone who does not treat people equally is wrong and ought to act according to your values, but that you ought not act according to their values.

I don't think you can prove that someone ought to be moral, or ought to act a certain way, regardless of interest. No one can, God or human.

But, I think it's reasonable to say that there is individual 'good', and considering the good of
all is the 'objective good'... morality. Whether people wish to be good will always be their choice, and whether people agree with me is the issue at hand.

 

[SPF]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I really don't know what you're arguing with me about because you clearly do not believe in objective morals and values.

Objective means that something is morally right or morally wrong regardless of what anyone, or any consensus thinks. The model you're presenting is not one of objective morals and values.

You're suggesting that morality is fluid and develops and changes depending upon the popular opinion, or consensus of the culture one lives in.

So we agree then that in an atheistic worldview that morality is subjective and determined by consensus, and can change over time and between cultures as the consensus can change over time. Right?

 

[Allandavid]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I really don't know what you're arguing with me about because you clearly do not believe in objective morals and values.

Objective means that something is morally right or morally wrong regardless of what anyone, or any consensus thinks. The model you're presenting is not one of objective morals and values.

You're suggesting that morality is fluid and develops and changes depending upon the popular opinion, or consensus of the culture one lives in.

So we agree then that in an atheistic worldview that morality is subjective and determined by consensus, and can change over time and between cultures as the consensus can change over time. Right?

Wrong. Particularly the last paragraph. We "agree" on no such thing! Because I assert that in ALL worldviews, this is how moral codes develop. Religions do nothing more than to co-opt the prevailing morality of the time. They piggy-back on the existing beliefs. Why do you think the Jewish god just happened to favour slavery at the time that it was in fashion? Why do you think Allah just happens to assert that women should cover themselves modestly and that homosexuals should die, in largely straight, male-dominated societies.

 

[Allandavid]

Furthermore, there are certain values which ARE objectively determined, in that they follow the conditions we find in our world. Pain is unpleasant. We do what we can to minimise pain as a result. So we develop some of our moral codes to deal specifically with that reality. That's an objective morality.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You are confusing the definition of atheism with the necessary conclusions of atheism.

There are none.

I know you'd like there to be, because your entire apologetic is predicated on it, but reality is under no obligation to kowtow to your imagination.

Straw man fallacy. I never claimed that Christianity is the only coherent moral philosophy.

Well that's a relief, at least. For someone who is not a van Tilian presuppositionalist, you sure argue like one. Which is to say, aiming at an internal critique of atheism, and failing utterly.

Case in point,

My only claim is that atheism can only make one objective moral claim - there is no real morality. Any other claims (i.e., "x is an immoral act", "y is a moral act") within an atheist framework can be nothing but unprovable subjective opinions.

'Atheism' makes no claims whatsoever. It is not a moral philosophy. It is not a philosophy at all. It is not a worldview. It is not a 'framework'. If you want to talk about any number of the individual moral philosophies that various atheists might subscribe to, I'd be happy to meet you there.

Or not. If you're really dead set on tilting at windmills, by all means, keep making an example of yourself.

And yet we have to just accept your assertions?

Nope. I would expect you to call me out on any positive assertion I make that is not substantiated.

I don't apply my own standards inconsistently, you see. I leave that to religious people.

That I haven't been meaningful is just another of your assertions

Actually, the onus is still on you. You don't get to just reflect it back, a propos of nothing.

Another unsubstantiated assertion.

Actually, it's very easily substantiated. All any concerned party needs to do is look in my posting history to see I've dealt with the 'moral argument' numerous times.

Yes, in a Christian framework, it does. Once again, this is about internal consistency. God being the absolute objective moral standard is a given in a Christian framework.

Ah, so Yahweh's opinions are magically 'objective', because it's a 'given'.

I suppose if you're convinced by that line of non-reasoning, you're welcome to it.

Unprovable assertion.

You have it backwards. Actually, worse than backwards.

If you wanted to assert that Yahweh is somehow pertinent to my moral philosophy, you would need to have intimate access to my moral cognitive processes. In other words, you have to be a mind reader.

You are not. In fact, only one person has intimate access to my moral cognitive processes - me.

I am therefor 100% certain that I know what I'm talking about when I say Yahweh is irrelevant to my moral philosophy, and 100% certain that you are wrong.

Thanks for playing.

Straw man fallacy. I've never claimed that you can't HAVE morals without God.

Nor did I claim you said that. Straw man-straw man.

Moving on.

Can you have morals without God? Of course. The issue, however, is NOT about having morals, it is about JUSTIFYING morals beyond personal opinions, something that is impossible within an atheist framework.

Firstly, my moral philosophy operates just fine without any invocation of Yahweh or any other imaginary non-entity you care to bring up.

Secondly - once again - your own moral philosophy does not even answer the criticism you are attempting to make here. Personal opinions do not magically become 'objective' by virtue of being held by a deity. And no, not even if it's a 'given' within your 'framework', it still doesn't magically happen.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Wrong. Particularly the last paragraph. We "agree" on no such thing! Because I assert that in ALL worldviews, this is how moral codes develop. Religions do nothing more than to co-opt the prevailing morality of the time. They piggy-back on the existing beliefs. Why do you think the Jewish god just happened to favour slavery at the time that it was in fashion? Why do you think Allah just happens to assert that women should cover themselves modestly and that homosexuals should die, in largely straight, male-dominated societies.

'God' is only as good as the people who imagine him.

 

[Allandavid]

'God' is only as good as the people who imagine him.

 

[quatona]

Allandavid, your "consensus" derived morality also cannot be objective because objective means that something is right or wrong regardless of what people think. If something is objectively wrong, then even if the consensus was that action X was acceptable, the consensus would be wrong.

A model where the consensus establishes morals and values is by its very nature subjective.

So is a model where a God´s opinion establishes morals and values.