The source of moral obligation

[Jeremy E Walker]

Why "must" they?

For the same reason you say a Christian must support the truth claim: "God exists", or "Jesus Christ rose bodily from the grave on the Sunday following His crucifixion."

This is a philosophy forum on a Christian website, not an open forum on an atheist website.

You act like it is strange for me to ask for you to support your truth claims.

 

[bhsmte]

For the same reason you say a Christian must support the truth claim: "God exists", or "Jesus Christ rose bodily from the grave on the Sunday following His crucifixion."

This is a philosophy forum on a Christian website, not an open forum on an atheist website.

You act like it is strange for me to ask for you to support your truth claims.

And people have given you answers.

 

[Davian]

As I said, my ability or inability to meet this burden you speak of is irrelevant to the discussion.

Your initiation of this thread is evidence of your inability to meet your burden, so it is completely relevant.

If by "answer" you mean a "response", then yes, I agree. If by answer, you mean "furnished the grounding for moral obligations", then you have not.

That you have not familiar with concepts such as social contracts does not mean that the information has not been furnished.

I am talking with people who claim there indeed are moral obligations. These are either grounded objectively i.e. independently of people's opinions, or subjectively.

For the one who does not deny the existence of moral duties, there is no third option, thus your charge of a false dichotomy is without warrant.

You said: "Are they grounded in human feelings and opinions or are they grounded objectively?"

Making other humans drink battery acid is objectively wrong, based on human wellness, reason, and empathy.

An individual in a small, nomadic group, that steals extra food, may be punished by the group, if they are the rebellious teenager. If they are a nursing mother, maybe not.

Your dichotomy does not fit.

 

[quatona]

Shifting the burden over to me is not answering the question.

I didn´t shift any burden. I simply pointed out that your line of reasoning destroys your own favourite argument.

I am not the atheist claiming that people should be empathetic or remorseful.

No, you are the theist claiming this.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

The I.E.P. elucidates in part, some of my views regarding this subject. I have provided it for those interested.

"For those committed to the existence of objective moral truths, such truths seem to fit well within a theistic framework. That is, if the origin of the universe is a personal moral being, then the existence of objective moral truths are at home, so to speak, in the universe. By contrast, if the origin of the universe is non-moral, then the existence of such truths becomes philosophically perplexing, because it is unclear how moral properties can come into existence via non-moral origins. Given the metaphysical insight that ex nihilo, nihilo fit, the resulting claim is that out of the non-moral, nothing moral comes. Objective moral properties stick out due to a lack of naturalness of fit in an entirely naturalistic universe." Divine Command Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[quatona]

The I.E.P. elucidates in part, some of my views regarding this subject. I have provided it for those interested.

Why should Jeremy adopt them?

 

[Ana the Ist]

LOL,

I agree that people have different opinions about what morality is.

This is evidenced by the various opinions seen here. This is called descriptive moral relativism and is uncontroversial.

You took the fact that there are different opinions about what morality is and concluded that that is all morality is.

Do you not see the fallacy in that reasoning? You take the fact that there are indeed differences of opinion as to what is moral, and from that fact, made a meta-ethical claim i.e. that objective moral values and duties do not exist. But a thing's existence (ontology) is wholly independent of whether or not people agree about the nature of said thing.

To give you an example, there are differences of opinion when it comes to the nature of quantum mechanics. There are at least eleven different views about the nature of quantum mechanics. If we were to apply your reasoning here, we would have to admit that there is in fact, no objective truth at all about the nature of quantum mechanics!

In a classroom full of people a teacher could hand out one math equation to the students and get back twenty different answers. The fact that there is disagreement about the answer does not give us justification for saying there is no right answer!

So your reasoning is a text book example of a non-sequitur.

Oh buddy...I got some bad news for you...

Since you used the term non-sequitur, I'm going to assume you actually know what that means. You are right about one thing here ...the existence of moral obligations isn't dependent upon everyone agreeing upon them. Their existence is , however, dependent upon someone demonstrating they exist...which you and no one else has done. See, all I've done is stop my assumptions where the evidence stopped... there's nothing illogical about that.

Remember when I asked for some examples and you couldn't even give me one? What does that say about their existence? Let's take a step back first...

How would you even demonstrate they exist? We can demonstrate physical laws with the way things interact. We can describe them with mathematical equations... how about moral laws/obligations? Any idea how we can describe them or demonstrate their existence? See the problem yet?

I've never...ever...seen anyone manage to make the leap from moral opinion.....to moral law/obligations. I'm certainly not going to hold my breath on it...you haven't even tried and it's your thread! Lol

It's a bit like discussing "where did god come from?" Without first showing god exists...it's cute, but completely empty. Your entire OP is a non-sequitur.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My ability or inability to meet this burden you speak of is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is a red herring.

Atheists must give an account for what grounds moral duties if they claim they exist. Are they grounded in human feelings and opinions or are they grounded objectively? If the latter, what is the grounds?

Let's not pretend that we are ignorant of your intentions. Freodin nailed it to down to a T. The answers atheists give to the OP are unimportant for your purposes. All that it matters is that you can dismiss them and smoothly segue into the moral argument. That's what this is about. Anyone who has a had a history of discussing this with you can see it a mile away. Given your reluctance to introduce the additional premise that you're holding in what you consider to be a "winning" hand, I surmise that this isn't going how you planned, is it?

 

[Ken-1122]

Atheists must give an account for what grounds moral duties if they claim they exist. Are they grounded in human feelings and opinions or are they grounded objectively? If the latter, what is the grounds?

Atheist only speak for themselves; you can't assume we all think alike like with Theist. If you want to know how a particular atheists morality is grounded, you are only getting his opinion; something that cannot be applied to other atheists, and his opinions probably have nothing to do with being an atheist.

Ken

 

[bhsmte]

Let's not pretend that we are ignorant of your intentions. Freodin nailed it to down to a T. The answers atheists give to the OP are unimportant for your purposes. All that it matters is that you can dismiss them and smoothly segue into the moral argument. That's what this is about. Anyone who has a had a history of discussing this with you can see it a mile away. Given your reluctance to introduce the additional premise that you're holding in what you consider to be a "winning" hand, I surmise that this isn't going how you planned, is it?

Bravo!!!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Atheist only speak for themselves; you can't assume we all think alike like with Theist. If you want to know how a particular atheists morality is grounded, you are only getting his opinion; something that cannot be applied to other atheists, and his opinions probably have nothing to do with being an atheist.

Ken

I have to disagree on that point. As with individual atheists, we don't really know what a theist thinks about morality until we ask him or her. We can presume that they believe morality is tied to theology, but that's only because we most frequently encounter theists who make that claim. The 'theist' label alone does not necessarily imply that, and it is not contrary to theism to suggest otherwise.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No.There are, most probably, bio-psychological reasons that ground morality, whether we acknowledge it or not.


Saying "Well, I believe God says... therefore thats how moraility is grounding" is like saying "Well, my cosmology is YEC, therefore thats how the cosmos is grounded."

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Their existence is , however, dependent upon someone demonstrating they exist...which you and no one else has done.

Do any of our resident philosophers want to show Ana why her reasoning is fallacious?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do any of our resident philosophers want to show Ana why her reasoning is fallacious?

I think I can spot yours... a contextomy? You've done that in the past so it seems to fit.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I think I can spot yours... a contextomy? You've done that in the past so it seems to fit.

You have just furnished the budding philosophers here with another chance to exercise their skills.

Why is my post not a contextomy?

Anyone care to give a shot?

 

[talquin]

Atheists, where do moral obligations and prohibitions come from if there is no moral law giver to prohibit or prescribe moral duties?

We get them primarily from our elders - parents, teachers, etc. Other ways we get them is through watching how people are treated after they do good or bad things.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Thus far the majority of the responses I have been given all boil down to:

Moral presciptions come from humans.

Does that about sum it up?

 

[quatona]

Thus far the majority of the responses I have been given all boil down to:

Moral presciptions come from humans.

Does that about sum it up?

Your original post was about moral obligations.
Did you mean to ask about prescriptions right from the start, or have you changed the horses midstream?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Your original post was about moral obligations.
Did you mean to ask about prescriptions right from the start, or have you changed the horses midstream?

Read my OP again.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do any of our resident philosophers want to show Ana why her reasoning is fallacious?

Sorry, their existence isn't dependent upon showing they exist. However, it is unreasonable so assume they exist without first demonstrating they exist.