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.
In regard to the case study, Jeremy's moral development has been severely limited by ongoing psychopathy. No moral idea, whether derived from religion or something else, would have any purchase on him. He has little to no concept of what it means to be morally obligated. Reaching him on a moral level would first require successfully treating the psychopathy.
In regard to the case study, Jeremy's moral development has been severely limited by ongoing psychopathy. No moral idea, whether derived from religion or something else, has any purchase on him. He has little to no concept of what it means to be morally obligated. Reaching him on a moral level would first require successfully treating the psychopathy.
Ancient Greek philosophers didn't have a notion of moral obligation because they didn't have a law concept of ethics. There was virtue and there was vice. Virtue was what turned you toward your telos, or your purpose; vice was that which turned you away from it. The notion of a moral law is a Christian contribution.
Precisely.
I doubt Jeremy will find this troubling. Jeremy is ultimately responsible for protecting himself. He is not going to have faith that everyone else is so concerned about his best interest. Remember, one assents to the social contract ultimately out of self-interest anyway.
None whatsoever! That is the point. And he won't because Jeremy is a consistent atheist.
He realizes that such notions are just social constructs, ultimately illusory and totally relative to the society he happens to find himself abiding in.
Bingo!
Nope.
And Jeremy could be a law enforcement officer himself. He could be the chief of police!
He could be in with the cops real well. Who knows.
And as far as leaving the protection of the contract, this does not bother him at all because:
1. He knows that all those who hold to a social contract theory do so ultimately out of self-interest.
This means that he knows that people are going to ultimately look out for themselves. So he is not going to hesitate to do what he determines is in his best interest. He is good at faking it. Whenever he can break the law, cheat, lie, steal, defraud and get away with it, he will because he has only his self interest at heart.
He has a few years to live before he dies and he is not going to waste them denying his own desires just to be faithful to some contract that he knows people break out of self interest all the time.
It sounds like Jeremy is a psychopath, and not even religion could make him moral.
I think you need to go read about social contract theory.It sounds to me like most atheist answers suggest they believe in "moral conditioning" rather than moral laws.
Social contract theory explains why societies have laws, but it doesn't explain whether an action is intrinsically moral or immoral.
I think you need to read some history.It was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit down on the front of a bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955... but that hardly makes her action immoral, since the law itself was unjust.
Eudaimonist said:Jeremy should consider the following:
1) He isn't just a mass of desires. He is a rational being that is capable of judging his desires for their appropriateness to his life, and who has a need to follow long-term rational courses of action. Upon reflection, Jeremy may come to understand that actions have consequences, including internal consequences. By giving in to this desire, simply because it is a desire, he is weakening his ability to exercise the rational virtues that he needs to live a successful life.
2) By nature, he is a social being. By stealing from someone else, he is treating society as his enemy, even if other people are not currently aware of this (although there is no long-term guarantee of that!) If he looks to take advantage of others, he will prefer the company of his "soul mates" -- other parasites. It won't be obvious to him, but he will be cutting himself off from friendship with virtuous people who offer far better values than free iPads.
3) He will be robbing himself of self-respect. Deep down, he will understand that most other people create the values that they get in life (such as iPads earned through productive work), instead of acting like a parasite and living through the accomplishments of those others. The most basic "punishment" for being a thief is knowing that one is only a thief and that most people aren't.
I'll leave the list at that, though there are more considerations possible for Jeremy. He is putting himself down a dark road that is inconsistent with his good as a complete human individual. A teacher once told me that a student who cheats on exams is only cheating themselves out of an education. I think that there is truth to that. People who try to cheat at life only cheat themselves out of all of the best that life has to offer.
RDKirk said:Sorry, no. "Obligation" is not imposed, a person obligates himself through voluntary contract with another person.
RDKirk said:Now, I'd debate whether Christianity invented "moral law" (where was Hammurabi--who claimed Marduk gave him the law? Where was Moses?). The Roman Army had moral law. What you described was Platonist morality, which certainly wasn't all there was.
RDKirk said:And most of Christianity today considers itself virtue-based rather than law-based and most Christians today would argue you based on that difference.
Davian said:Have you no comment on post #23? Is it not accurate?
Let's see how this works if we have a "moral law giver" like that found in the bible.
Is Jeremy a believer?
Yes) - Go to heaven
No) - Burn.
I think was needs to be stated to underline the point the OP is making is that "obligation" implies a superior and an subordinate. Obligstion is something a superior places on a subordinate.
That would only be the case if Jeremy had not added the "if there is no moral law giver" to the OP, and not simply asked "where do moral obligations and prohibitions come from"....
It's irrelevant. It doesn't address the question asked. It changes the subject to Jeremy's eternal destiny rather than his contemplated action. In other words, it's a red herring.
Agreed. It seems even worse than that. Jeremy would ask: Why should I (Jeremy) "consider certain things"?
If potential facts are unimportant to Jeremy, he is extremely disconnected from reality.
eudaimonia,
Mark
The Silver Rule: "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you".What obligates Jeremy to deny himself and his own personal interest in his scenario?
Red herring? Tell me what your hypothetical "moral law giver" adds to your scenario.I can keep asking this question if you want to keep throwing out red herrings.
Claiming your views about right and wrong are factual does not make them factual anymore than me claiming my views about right and wrong are factual makes mine factual.
Rather that this carefully constructed straw-man, I look at it from a different angle.You and Jeremy are sitting in a Starbuck's. He sees the iPad you have been using to post replies on this forum. He wants it. You get up to go take a leak. Not thinking it would be taken while you are gone, you leave it on the table.
Jeremy knows he can calmly walk over and pick it up because the place is dead. The few people in there have their heads stuck up their smart phones and he knows he can get away without getting caught because he has done it hundreds of times.
Who or what obligates him to deny his desire to have your iPad and leave it right where it is instead of taking it?
None of those answers make any reference to a moral obligation though, and that's what was being asked. Simply answering "nothing" would have been perfectly reasonable. I think was needs to be stated to underline the point the OP is making is that "obligation" implies a superior and an subordinate. Obligstion is something a superior places on a subordinate. So, if that superior isn't God, who or what is it? Simple question. If it isn't answered, what sense does it make to speak of "moral obligation" at all?
An obigation often isn't chosen, but it no less binding. Even with a voluntary contract, there's an authority that has the responsibilty of enforcing it.
There is a difference between a written legal code and moral law that transcends temporal political authority. I'll grant you that the Law of Moses became that in Judaism, but it was Christianity that introduced that concept to the wider world.
Historically, Christian morality has been both law-based and virtue based. Post-Enlightenment moral philosophy is, if anything, even weaker in its understanding of virtue than in its understanding of moral law, but I digress.
Nope. A powerful entity may impose a task upon me, but that is not an moral obligation upon me. If you capture me by force of arms and enchain me, that does not place upon me a moral obligation to obey you.
I create the moral obligation upon myself when I voluntarily enter into a covenant relationship, or at the very least acquiesce to being in a covenant relationship.
Eudaimonist said:If I owe money, that may be an obligation, but it doesn't imply that I am subordinate to a superior.
Eudaimonist said:I have never heard the idea before that morality is some sort of relationship between superiors and subordinates.
Davian said:The fallacy here is Jeremy's false dichotomy: no moral law giver = no morals.
Davian said:The Silver Rule: "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you".
That would only be the case if Jeremy had not added the "if there is no moral law giver" to the OP, and not simply asked "where do moral obligations and prohibitions come from".
The fallacy here is Jeremy's false dichotomy: no moral law giver = no morals.
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?