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.
Well it's your OP, isn't it?
To me at least, the truth about morality is an uncomfortable one not far from the truth of god's non-existence. We'd like to think there are moral laws/obligations because it feels better that way. We don't like to think that perhaps in similar situations we'd act just as horribly as others have...we prefer to judge from the sidelines, so to speak. It's that judgement that allows us to look at others as morally "beneath" us, or even our moral betters (and therefore something to strive for)...losing that is a bit like losing a part of your identity.
I think every atheist who once believed understands that feeling...even though most of them now see themselves better for it knowing that what they lost when they stopped believing was something false anyway. It's a bit harder to convince someone to accept that their sense of morality isn't really any different. It's something so ingrained in you that it cannot simply be abandoned... but once understood for what it is you can see past it.
Why should I regard what you regard? Who are you to say that someone lacks skill at living a human life?
No, he will be doing the self-serving, egotistical, thing to do because he can and can get away with it and because no one else can legitimately pass judgment on him and because HE has determined that it is IN HIS best interest to do what he wants to do.
I'm not sure why Jeremy keeps referring to himself as "Jeremy" instead of "I." Anyway, I think that people often overlook the very plausible non-cognitivist claim. Non-cognitivism essentially says that moral statements are expressions rather than propositions. When we say "Rape is bad!" what we're actually doing is something similar to "BOOO!" or "Yuck!" Expressions like "Boo!" or "Yuck!" are not true or false. They are merely expressing our sentiments on an issue, much like we might say "Yum!" when eating tasty food.
Evolution has produced in us some very strong sentiments, and the strongest are those that are tied to survival. Hence, we aren't as opposed to theft as we are murder.
To the topic of moral obligations: Moral obligations can clearly be stated at least as if-then conditionals. If you want to reduce suffering and maximize happiness, then you shouldn't kill innocent babies or p*ss in your neighbor's punch bowl. The difficulty comes in demonstrating a compelling obligation if one rejects the "if." If I don't share the goal of minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness, I probably won't be motivated by such a conditional. However, it might make sense to respond to such a person by saying "Well, you SHOULD share that goal, thus you should still avoid killing babies." Obviously, the question could further be pressed to "Why should I share that goal?" It has been argued in the literature before that, if two people don't share a certain number of foundational ethical beliefs, they can't have a moral disagreement. In most moral disagreements, what the two sides are essentially doing is arguing for conformity. For example, one might say something like "The reason you shouldn't have an abortion is that you wouldn't kill an infant baby, and this is the same thing!" Of course, if one doesn't agree that killing infant babies is wrong, or that causing suffering in general is wrong, there is little to which an opponent can point.
I say all of that to say that moral obligations probably only make sense to people who have already agreed upon some basic moral tenets. They can be very basic such as "It's not good to cause needless suffering." Once those "rules of the game" are in place, all sorts of moral obligations can be derived from those simple premises. However, such obligations might not be felt by someone who does not agree to those basic tenets.
I just wanted to point out that in order to say things like "Who are you to say..." or "no one else can legitimately pass judgment..." you are presuming some sort of ethical standard. You are assuming that there is some qualification needed to say certain things or pass judgment, which is in itself an ethical standard. Basic conditionals like "in order to pass judgment, you should X" are clearly ethical propositions.
One can't be amoral.
One can be a meta-ethical subjectivist, but in doing so one still puts forth propositions that he or she believes are true and propositions he or she believes are false. In doing so, there would almost certainly be obligations that would follow from those propositions. They may not be obligations anyone else shares, but they would be obligations nonetheless.
Atheists, where do moral obligations and prohibitions come from if there is no moral law giver to prohibit or prescribe moral duties?
I think one could be in the sense that there is nothing logically impossible about it. I can think of a person who truly lacks the capacity for being moral. A true psychopath or sociopath. But these types of people are so few and far between as to be for all intents and purposes immaterial to our discussion.
and it starts from the position that what is harmful to your neighbor is bad, and what is helpful to your neighbor is good.
Moral obligations occur when the society of which you live; enacts laws around morality and you are obligated to follow those laws or suffer the consequences of breaking them. The moral law giver is the person, group, or system a society puts in place to enact and enforce laws based upon morality.
Ken
Because it makes it easier and more enjoyable to live with your neighbor that wayWhy is it bad to do harm to your neighbor? Why is it good to be helpful?
Like in Nazi Germany where the Third Reich enacted laws the people were obligated to follow?
What obligates Jeremy to deny himself and his own personal interest in his scenario?
I can keep asking this question if you want to keep throwing out red herrings.
Clearly nothing, as Jeremy does not understand what it means to be morally obligated. As I noted earlier, the psychopathy needs to be treated first if he is to develop any sense of morality at all.
Jeremy is an atheist who agrees with Dawkins when he says, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
And...
DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.
And...
Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection, although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution.
And...
We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA. ... This is exactly what we are for. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object's sole reason for living.
Jeremy also agrees with humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz when he says, "The Copernican and Darwinian revolutions have dethroned us from the conviction that we are the center of a universe that was created for us, and the belief that we are fundamentally different from all other species. Many refuse to accept the full implications of these discoveries."
Jeremy also is a fan of Thomas Hobbes, like several other atheists here who adhere to social contract theory. Davian is one such fellow. You see, Thomas Hobbes believed that for selfish reasons alone, we devise a means of enforcing societal rules: we create a policing agency which punishes us if we violate these rules. A kind of "I am going to do this or not do that because it is in my best interest" type of philosophy.
Jeremy understands that some people, like Christians, or atheists like Mark or Archaeopteryx, feel very strongly that certain actions like stealing people's iPads are really wrong and that if he disagrees, he will be labeled as psychopathic.
Jeremy laughs because these "atheists" do the very same thing they accuse Christians and other religious folk of doing. Jeremy realizes they are attempting to give weight to their views by saying that their views are true even if Jeremy thinks otherwise. He likens them to Christians who tell women they should not have abortions because abortions are really wrong even if the woman having it thinks it is right.
He likens them to Christians who tell homosexuals that homosexuality is wrong even if the homosexual thinks it is right.
If someone disagrees with Mark or Archaeopteryx, they are labeled as psychopathic by them the same way a Christian would label someone who disagreed with them as "prideful sinner".
Jeremy sees Mark and Arcaheopteryx as fundamentally no different than anyone else who affirms the existence of objective moral values and duties.
Jeremy sees them repeatedly affirming premise 2 of the moral argument for the existence of God which he finds amusing.
Jeremy once again finds this amusing.
When Archaeopteryx cannot convince Jeremy to adopt his particular set of views on what is right and wrong, good and bad, he dismisses him as psychopathic.
It seems you are implying, or rather arguing, that certain actions are self evidently obligatory and good, and that if a person cannot recognize this, then they are morally handicapped, or as you love to say, err...uhh "psychopathic".
It is almost as if you are suggesting, and pardon the phrase, God forbid, that some things are objectively wrong!
Could it be!!!??!!
Why is he psychopathic?
From your description of him, Jeremy is callous, narcissistic, manipulative, lacks empathy and remorse, and displays severe antisocial behaviour. All these are characteristics of psychopathy.
I'm not sure why you've skirted the real issue. The heart of your disagreement with Jeremy is simply the possibility that another person would not share a fundamental moral belief with you. It could be any belief, but the important question here is what could you say to such a person to illustrate that they are wrong and you are right?
A person merely putting their own needs over that of others, and thus stealing an iPad, does not make that person psychopathic.
Even if he or she were psychopathic, that doesn't answer the question of why your morality is correct and his or hers is incorrect.
This statement is faulty. As a theory, it is descriptive, not prescriptive. Biology does not adhere to the theory of evolution....
Jeremy also is a fan of Thomas Hobbes, like several other atheists here who adhere to social contract theory. Davian is one such fellow.
You replied with a question instead of trying to give an actual answer.
If you owe money, doesn't that give the creditor a legal claim on your resources?
Why do you say that?
Or a clever cop.
Depends on who you ask, right?
Why do you say that?
Social contract theory is a normative theory developed by Hobbes who himself was an advocate of psychological egoism.
So yea, calling someone egotistical who promotes social contract theory is essentially calling a spade a spade.
Congratulations.
Yea, now you are beginning to see what types of people would love to promote social contract theory.
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?