Needing justification for morality

[ToddNotTodd]

I know much much more details about the evolution theory than you do. Scientifically or philosophically.

Evidence?

 

[bhsmte]

I know much much more details about the evolution theory than you do. Scientifically or philosophically.

Really?

That is interesting. What is even more interesting, is you have all this knowledge and you still reject it.

Care to give us a rundown on the specifics of your opinions?

 

[quatona]

I know much much more details about the evolution theory than you do.

That may be the case. Doesn´t change anything about the fact that you got this particular thing wrong.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I know much much more details about the evolution theory than you do. Scientifically or philosophically.

Hahahaha evolution isn't a philosophy.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Some theists (not all of them) however, have some kind of need to dehumanize atheists.

... is what is known as 'projection'.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

How successful the compassionate action turns out to be in terms of helping the person in question may very well be dependent on knowledge of cause and effect both long and short term. I wouldn't argue against that.

Thank you.

Many people behave in ways that could be considered kind, altruistic, self sacrificing etc... on a regular basis without knowing the first thing about theories of ethics...

Perhaps not 'formalized course work' ethics, but they do have a sense of right and wrong. This sense of right and wrong is based on what their parents taught them, based on local (how ever wide spread that might be) customs and beliefs. This in turn comes from long existing 'natural' laws which ultimately derive from the Creator who established the 'natural' laws.

As with everything else on this world, the original message gets twisted from time to time.

You must have me confused with someone else.

So you understand all 'natural law' derives from the Creator of nature?

 

[Huntun]

So you understand all 'natural law' derives from the Creator of nature?

I wouldn't claim such a thing. Nature is so of itself according to my understanding. No absolute creation only change. I don't see how my response would necessarily imply agreement with the theory you mentioned in your question. As if the only two possibilities are being an arrogant know it all type (my supposed faction)or agreeing with that theory. In fact I'm sure I can find some arrogant know it all people who would actually agree with your theory and reject mine.

 

[bhsmte]

... is what is known as 'projection'.

That would depend on a couple of things.

First, his statement would need to be false. Second, he would have to be employing the same behaviors he is claiming others are.

If both of those criteria are met, than it is projection.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So, what is moral to you? Let me tell you what that is: Moral is what the majority agreed upon.

*facepalm*

Or, the law says what the moral is.

*facepalm*

Instead of trying to mindread, ask questions and listen to the answers you are given.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Any morals which a (true) atheist has, are derived from nature. They are of natural law, which is of God.

Natural laws are of nature, not of "God".

Like it or not all morals then derive from God.

Only if you are correct. If you aren't, then like it or not morals all derive from nature.

They are instilled from birth within conscience. The atheist won't believe this.

Some might, but they will probably cite evolutionary psychology for the explanation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chany]

I feel Socrates might need to beat down Euthyphro again. Like always.

 

[DogmaHunter]

... is what is known as 'projection'.

I find it hilarious that that was all you had to say in response to my posts.

I raised quite a few points in a post directed at you and all you have to say is some vague accusation which you aren't even backing up. Which you can't even back up, I will add.

Care to actually address the points I raised, or will you conclude with just this unsubstantiated personal attack?

 

[DogmaHunter]

This sense of right and wrong is based on what their parents taught them, based on local (how ever wide spread that might be) customs and beliefs.

This is too simplistic. If this were true, then morals wouldn't evolve the way they do. Then 2 Nazi parents could never have a child that comes to different conclusions. While upbringing and background culture certainly plays a role, individual instinctive empathy and being able to think and reason for yourself is not to be underestimated either. All that coupled with gaining knowledge, off course.

This in turn comes from long existing 'natural' laws which ultimately derive from the Creator who established the 'natural' laws.

Evidence for this claim?
Do these "natural laws" include the condoning of slavery and public stoning?

As with everything else on this world, the original message gets twisted from time to time.

False. Instead, science progresses. We learn more about the world and ourselves. The realisation that black folks are just as human as white folks changed the way we organize society and how we view racism. The realisation that animals can suffer gave rise to animal rights and how we treat animals in general. The realisation of how human activities can have long term effects on the environment changed the way we view pollution etc.

And all those things have moral implications.
The only thing here that stays the same is the "end goal". The "utopia" if you will: the least possible suffering and the best possible well being for the most possible sentient beings.

That's the bottom line. Understanding the consequences of our actions informs us on what moral decisions to make. Not some bronze-age text.

So you understand all 'natural law' derives from the Creator of nature?

I understand that you keep claiming it.
I also understand that that's all you do: claiming it.

I can claim it came from the invisible cookie monster and it would have just as much merrit.

 

[Syd the Human]

It is certainly convenient to your argument to disagree. Not only do you not have the statistics, you weren't there and didn't see what happened.Oh? Can you cite a source for that partial definition? Then, of course, the term 'hurt' must be defined.Syd, I - and every other payer of income tax - are 'hurt' by the imposition of taxes for the purpose of paying for those dependent children. Part of what I earned is removed from my account to pay for 'dependent' children. This is not 'charity' on my part, but a forceful appropriation of my work to feed, clothe and house others. But you say that doesn't 'hurt' me. If the people my tax monies feed came and took it by force, under threat of armed violence - as any government does in reality - that act would be considered armed robbery.

I disagree with your conclusion about out of wedlock children.

Perhaps we should regulate the number of children born to anyone who cannot support them appropriately. Please note court case in Ohio regarding this concept: Ohio dad can't have more kids until he pays off child support, court says | Fox News

Or do you support the idea of 'welfare' industry which produces children for he express purpose of providing income to the parent? Where does that fit into your morality?

Do you think that every single child born out of wedlock (not born within a marriage) is on welfare? I won't deny that there aren't any, but about 40% are on welfare?

FASTSTATS - Unmarried Childbearing <-- percentage of babies born out of wedlock (40.7%)

Welfare Statistics | Statistic Brain <--- percentage of people on welfare in the US (4.1%)

And yes, taxes will go to those who can't help themselves. Such a pain huh? I mean, it's not like some guy 2000ish years ago said to help those in need. It's not like it's a basic Christian belief that a person should help out their fellow man (or woman or child) right?

And I did say I could not challenge your comment correct? I don't see why you're getting so upset about that.

And yes, people do abuse that system. But should we just scrap the whole thing? Or just find some way to regulate it more (I know that won't completely get rid of that problem, and I have no idea how to make that system better either. But just because I can't does not mean that it's impossible.) Some people take in foster kids just for the money, should we remove the foster care system as well? Where will they all go?

I'm not going to deny that paying taxes is a "pain in the butt", but do you honestly want to get rid of that portion of taxes that provide food and shelter for those people? You can't be serious.

 

[juvenissun]

So, if god says to commit genocide on a certain people, then it's morally just to commit genocide?

It happened once to Israelites a few thousand years ago.

Yes, it is justified. If you have question about that (like I had for a good while), then you need to ask: why.

 

[juvenissun]

Really?

That is interesting. What is even more interesting, is you have all this knowledge and you still reject it.

Care to give us a rundown on the specifics of your opinions?

Because I have the knowledge, So I can reject it. I can deal with any of your argument too. (don't try, this is not a thread for it)

 

[juvenissun]

That may be the case. Doesn´t change anything about the fact that you got this particular thing wrong.

I don't see what this particular thing is.

 

[quatona]

I don't see what this particular thing is.

That´s because you keep beating around the bush until you have forgotten what the point of discussion was.
Here, let me look it up for you:

In fact, the theory of evolution is the one western philosophy (no science argument) mostly related to the philosophy of Daoism. For example, it is moral to a Daoist that a strong guy kills a weak guy regardless of reason. In Daoism, this is so-called &#22825;&#21629; (or sort of "fate")

 

[Chany]

I haven't looked through the entire thread yet, but has anyone either:

a) defined morality

or

b) brought up the Euthyphro dilemma yet?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It happened once to Israelites a few thousand years ago.
Yes, it is justified.

Juvenissun, justifying genocide.

If you have question about that (like I had for a good while), then you need to ask: why.

It doesn't matter. There is no context in which genocide is a-okay.

See, this is what happens when you sacrifice your rational reasoning in favor of bronze-age myths. It can potentially put you in a position where you will have to defend and justify the killing of thousands, if not millions, of innocent men, women and children.

And you dare to lecture us about morality. Give me a break.