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.
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.
Your initiation of this thread is evidence of your inability to meet your burden, so it is completely relevant.As I said, my ability or inability to meet this burden you speak of is irrelevant to the discussion.
That you have not familiar with concepts such as social contracts does not mean that the information has not been furnished.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.
You said: "Are they grounded in human feelings and opinions or are they grounded objectively?"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.
I didn´t shift any burden. I simply pointed out that your line of reasoning destroys your own favourite argument.Shifting the burden over to me is not answering the question.
No, you are the theist claiming this.I am not the atheist claiming that people should be empathetic or remorseful.
Why should Jeremy adopt them?The I.E.P. elucidates in part, some of my views regarding this subject. I have provided it for those interested.
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.
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?
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?
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
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?
I think I can spot yours... a contextomy? You've done that in the past so it seems to fit.
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.Atheists, where do moral obligations and prohibitions come from if there is no moral law giver to prohibit or prescribe moral duties?
Your original post was about moral obligations.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?
Do any of our resident philosophers want to show Ana why her reasoning is fallacious?
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?