Needing justification for morality

[znr]

What strategy is this? Where is this modeled...based on scipture or a concept you may have observed from scipture, either or - I'd be interested to read your answer.

There are different strategy to win souls. To show force is one of them.

 

[poolerboy0077]

True morality is NOT up to any justification (no need).
Most atheists do not know that. That is why they are atheists. They need to justify everything they do. (but they can NEVER be consistent in doing that)

Religious believers need not justify their assertions?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Religious believers need not justify their assertions?

Yeah, pretty sure the bible itself would be a justification.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Morality is a virtue, and is it's own reward (is self-rewarding). No justification needed.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Morality is a virtue, and is it's own reward (is self-rewarding). No justification needed.

I will give an to that. Doing good for others does feel good, and it can be contagious. It has been shown that when people see charitable and kind acts in person, they are more likely to be charitable and kind throughout the day themselves.

 

[juvenissun]

What strategy is this? Where is this modeled...based on scipture or a concept you may have observed from scipture, either or - I'd be interested to read your answer.

Check Deut 4: 5-6. In fact, these two verses show a theme in the whole book.

You show wisdom from God to people. That is a powerful witness.

 

[juvenissun]

Absolutely no such deal. If you're allowed to do it (get personal), I am allowed to do it.

You are interesting.

 

[juvenissun]

I didn't answer the question either way. I was saying that the term murder itself implies a moral judgment. No need to ask if you already have the answer in the wording of the question.

After thinking about it a little more I take that back though. It actually only implies the unlawful killing of a person and not necessarily the wrongful or immoral killing of a person. So it might be a legitimate question. My view on that issue is still irrelevant to the question of if that post represented a shallow understanding of Daoism or not though.

Personally I've been trying harder not to view the world through a moral lens all the time and to be less judgmental. I'm not going to indulge here.

RE: Hans he is the guy I quoted in the post you said represented a shallow understanding of Taoism.

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 天命 (or sort of "fate")

 

[juvenissun]

Religious believers need not justify their assertions?

No. If God says so, do it.
Very simple.

 

[quatona]

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 天命 (or sort of "fate")

Don´t know if that demonstrates a shallow understanding of Daoism - but it demonstrates a shallow understanding of evolution theory, for sure.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I doubt that having children out of wedlock was "unthinkable" or uncommon. But I don't have the statistics so I can't really challenge that statement.

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.

But I think I can see how morals have changed. Morality is about not hurting other people, if it doesn't hurt someone else then it's not immoral.

Oh? Can you cite a source for that partial definition? Then, of course, the term 'hurt' must be defined.

That's why (why I think why) people don't consider having a child out of wedlock a bad thing, is having a child really that harmful to society or to other people?

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.

And if it is, should we then regulate the number of children? I'm not saying you're saying that, just so you know.

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?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Yep, all good evidence that there's no such thing as a fixed absolute moral code.

Correct but incomplete; there is not such thing as a fixed, absolute moral code apart from a fixed, absolute moral code Giver.

Weird. The US is like 80% Christian. How can this change be significant and and simultaneously be limited to non-Christians?

As of when, KC? At one point in the past, the U.S. was predominantly populated by people who were Christian or subscribed to Christian values. That has changed radically in the past thirty years. Anyone who cares to look can find mainstream Christianity still does not endorse extra or non marital sexual relations or procreation. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying that conduct violates the moral standards and teaching. If you don't understand that, any further discussion is going to be pointless.

Some people rely on authority to dictate moral decisions, but that's a pretty low level of moral development.

Which means those who possess a 'higher' level of moral development simply make up their own decisions as they proceed? I do believe that is the basic argument of Charles Manson. It was certainly the functional belief of people like Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin and others of that ilk.

Please identify ONE person admired for their upright moral stance who simply made up their own morality?

Are you implying that Christianity has an objectively correct universally agreed-upon answer to the question of slavery that has never changed in the history of the religion?

That's a cute trick question. Can you demonstrate an "...objectively correct universally agreed-upon answer to the question of ..." much anything in the history of atheism? (Other than the general consensus of 'we don't want no god person'.)

I find atheists very quick to tell me that all atheists are 'different' and therefore no generalities can be made. Very convenient, that is. Of course, at the same time, you - as an atheist - refuse to understand that all people who claim the title of Christian are different. That's very convenient as well.

The fact remains, it was mainstream Christianity that started the abolition movement. There were no 'atheist' movements to prohibit slavery, no Muslim groups who worked to end slavery, no 'eastern' movements; no one.

If you find it comforting to pretend differently, go ahead.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Acting compassionately doesn't necessarily require a thought out intellectual justification or a theory of morality. Humans generally don't like suffering and they are able to feel empathy. Add those two and compassionate actions are likely to take place with or without a theory of morality.

But it doesn't work that way.

One's child is crying because the child wants a candy bar. 'Acting compassionately' directs the parent to accede to the child's wishes and give a candy bar? Perhaps the parent should act compassionately by observing the principles of proper diet?

How about a homeless person who is homeless due to the person's inability to control his impulses? Giving money to this particular person will only provide the ability to get drunk or high and not really 'help' the person in question.

Mere 'compassion' without further thought is pretty empty. It might make the donor feel all warm and fuzzy, but the act of 'giving in' to raw demands without consulting a higher level of morality usually ends in more misery.

Gads. I am overwhelmed with a faction who claims to be superior in intellect and rational thought and simultaneously refuses to consider the ramifications of actions. A faction who points to 'laws' of nature and then assiduously ignores the laws of nature.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Morality is the result of realising the consequences of actions and a little thing called empathy. Morality is thus informed by reason and knowledge. And that goes for everyone, not just atheists.

Some theists (not all of them) however, have some kind of need to dehumanize atheists. Create an "us vs them" mentality. This is why they insists on atheist having no moral compass, or having no reason to adhere to a moral compass. It's all just a part of the "atheists are evil baby eating demons" shenannigans.

Fundamentalist theists who actually literally derive their moral code from bronze age texts actually don'thave a moral code at all. What they have is no more or less then obedience to a perceived authority. That is the kind of "morality" we find in psychopaths. It's not a morality. It's mere obedience.

Morality is the net result of knowledge and empathy. And that is why it keeps evolving through the ages. It's why at one point in history it was ok to keep slaves, while it isn't any longer. No matter what the bible says.

 

[stevenfrancis]

Any morals which a (true) atheist has, are derived from nature. They are of natural law, which is of God. Like it or not all morals then derive from God. They are instilled from birth within conscience. The atheist won't believe this. They'll go to great lengths to explain why this is so much hooey, but the explanations are lacking. At least to my ears. I suppose that could be just as much a fault of my ignorance of atheist natural law, and where the genesis of it comes from in their reasoned opinions.

 

[Huntun]

One's child is crying because the child wants a candy bar. 'Acting compassionately' directs the parent to accede to the child's wishes and give a candy bar? Perhaps the parent should act compassionately by observing the principles of proper diet?

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. Knowing something about proper nutrition or probable outcomes of certain actions and developing a well thought out theory of morality are two different things though. 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 - virtue ethics, divine command ethics, deontological ethics, etc.. Even monkeys have been known to evidence such behavior. I think we have certain natural predispositions that don't necessarily require theorizing for their existence.

Gads. I am overwhelmed with a faction who claims to be superior in intellect and rational thought and simultaneously refuses to consider the ramifications of actions. A faction who points to 'laws' of nature and then assiduously ignores the laws of nature.

You must have me confused with someone else.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's a cute trick question. Can you demonstrate an "...objectively correct universally agreed-upon answer to the question of ..." much anything in the history of atheism? (Other than the general consensus of 'we don't want no god person'.)

It's a cute question with a not-so-cute dodging on your part.

No atheist here is claiming that we all adhere to some central moral code that is universal among atheists, given by some "uber atheist".

Theists DO claim such a thing under divine command theory. Theists who yap about "objective" and "absolute" morals DO claims such a thing.

The lack of a universal stance about something like slavery suggests otherwise. Especially since the god of the bible clearly has little problems with the practice.

I find atheists very quick to tell me that all atheists are 'different' and therefore no generalities can be made.

That's because it is true. Atheism is not a worldview, it's not a philosophy, it's not a belief system. It's not anything actually. It's merely a word used for people who don't subscribe to some form of theism. It doesn't tell you ANYTHING about the person. It only tells you what the person does NOT believe, not what the person DOES believe.

Of course, at the same time, you - as an atheist - refuse to understand that all people who claim the title of Christian are different.

This is not true. And you're again obfuscating the issue.
There are Christians who claim that there is such a thing as "absolute" and "objective" morality and that it is given to humans by a "moral law giver" in the form of the bible.... If these people tell the truth, then there shouldn't be any difference among them. They should agree on every single moral issue. But they don't. So what they claim can't possibly be true.

The fact remains, it was mainstream Christianity that started the abolition movement

No. Christianity is just a religion. People start movements. These people happened to be christians (for the most part - not all of them). And that's not surprising either, considering most of that part of the world WAS christian.

"christianity" started the movement just as much as "islam" started science: not. PEOPLE engage in activities.

Also, during thousands of years, slavery was actually justified with a bible. So... did "christianity" also start slavery then? Or will you start a special pleading argument for that bigger part of human history?

 

[juvenissun]

Don´t know if that demonstrates a shallow understanding of Daoism - but it demonstrates a shallow understanding of evolution theory, for sure.

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

 

[DogmaHunter]

Any morals which a (true) atheist has, are derived from nature.

What does this even mean?

They are of natural law, which is of God

This makes no sense either.
Morality is the net result of empathy combined with understanding the consequences of actions and decisions.

Like it or not all morals then derive from God.

Only because you arbitrarily defined morals to be derived from "natural law" (whatever that meanst) and then asserted that "natural law" comes from god.

I could just as easily arbitrarily assert that it comes from the 7-headed dragon. And the argument would be just as valid as yours.

They are instilled from birth within conscience.

This is demonstrably false. Empathy is somewhat instinctive, but much of moral conduct is the result of upbringing and education.

The atheist won't believe this.

Because it's obviously false.

They'll go to great lengths to explain why this is so much hooey, but the explanations are lacking. At least to my ears.

Yes, to YOUR ears. But that's only because you stuffed your ears with bible pages. You don't want to hear about explanations that don't include bronze-ages myths. That doesn't make the explanations disappear off course. It only makes sure that they don't reach the gray mass in your skull.

I suppose that could be just as much a fault of my ignorance of atheist natural law, and where the genesis of it comes from in their reasoned opinions.

There's no such thing. Atheism is just a word to group people who don't subscribe to some form of theism. It doesn't tell you what they believe. It tells you what they don't believe.

You can keep the false dichotomies.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No. If God says so, do it.
Very simple.

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