What would change?

[The Nihilist]

The coathook on which morality hangs is not important. If you agree that man is a rational animal, then you're probably going to end up agreeing with Aristotle. That some men do not agree is irrelevant; ethics without God is possible.
You demand things of Eudaimonism you do not demand of christianity. Suppose your rich man is an atheist. How could you show him that he is wrong? Would you show him the bible? What does he care about the scribblings of ancient nomads? Your own bible says (somewhere) that his conscience has been seared.

 

[Apolloe]

ethics without God is possible

I did not deny this. I said there is no rational reason to pick one particular ethical framework over another.

If you agree that man is a rational animal, then you're probably going to end up agreeing with Aristotle

Don't just assert. Tell me why this is the case. I don't need specifics, just a general outline. Kai Nielson and other atheists think you are wrong - that even with the full facts (which would include the belief that man is a rational animal), you still can't derive morality. If you think those atheists, and myself, are wrong - show me how.

You demand things of Eudaimonism you do not demand of christianity. Suppose your rich man is an atheist. How could you show him that he is wrong?

This misunderstands my challenge. I was *assuming* atheism is true, or at the very least, that you and he both agree there is no God. To change the example appropriately, I would need to assume that this rich man were a Christian. And then it would be a simple task to show how he is wrong.

I was trying to highlight how there is no rational way for one atheist to persuade another that his particular ethical standard is right. I was inviting you to show me how I'm mistaken, by showing how the rich murderer was wrong, in the same way that someone who thinks the world is flat is wrong.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

The coathook on which morality hangs is not important. If you agree that man is a rational animal, then you're probably going to end up agreeing with Aristotle. That some men do not agree is irrelevant; ethics without God is possible.

No, if man is rational then it doesn't work.
If man has an instinctively built in code of morality it does.

BUT an instinctual code of morality is not as rigid as all that, instinctively we all need to eat, but we could not eat for much longer than normal if it benefits us to do so in some way and be all the happier for it - this is exactly the same with any instinctive morality.
Additionally it seems far more likely that we have instinctive empathy and imitation upon which an externally created morality is imposed through our upbringing.

The "will to be good" is undoubtedly present in most men (there are exceptions in psychopathology) but the specific form that "good" takes cannot be decided in a rational manner, there are thousands of contradictory theories on it many of which claim to be reasonable but nothing yet fits any reasonable bill and people still keep being or trying to be moral in their irrational ways.

Some people say that some rules are pretty universal across cultures, do not kill is often mentioned. But usually "do not kill" comes down to "do not kill people from your own clan" and sometimes it even manages to go beyond that to exclude people of particular genders or ages. Those kind of rules where they are the same are the same though because it is a function of good government for them to be so and the stability of the state depends on it, which is much more to do with politics than morality.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm afraid that I need to take a break from such weighty discussion for a few days, due to a minor health issue. I'll resume soon if I feel better.

Thanks, Nihilist, for explaining a bit about Aristotelianism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Nihilist]

I did not deny this. I said there is no rational reason to pick one particular ethical framework over another.

Don't just assert. Tell me why this is the case. I don't need specifics, just a general outline. Kai Nielson and other atheists think you are wrong - that even with the full facts (which would include the belief that man is a rational animal), you still can't derive morality. If you think those atheists, and myself, are wrong - show me how.

This misunderstands my challenge. I was *assuming* atheism is true, or at the very least, that you and he both agree there is no God. To change the example appropriately, I would need to assume that this rich man were a Christian. And then it would be a simple task to show how he is wrong.

I was trying to highlight how there is no rational way for one atheist to persuade another that his particular ethical standard is right. I was inviting you to show me how I'm mistaken, by showing how the rich murderer was wrong, in the same way that someone who thinks the world is flat is wrong.

As I've already said, I'm not going to go into a lot of detail on how Aristotle gets from man as a rational animal to eudaimonia. This is primarily because I don't know where my copy of Nichomachean Ethics is, but also because I think it would be extraordinarily tedious to try and do so. But if morality is to rely on something that is unchanging, then the nature of man is every bit as good as an immortal god.
I don't know who Kai Nelson is, and I don't much care. But if you're going to make an argument from authority, then I think I've got you there.
And I disagree on your rich man analogy. If the rich man is to be a christian for you, then he must be a Eudaimonist for me. And if he is to be an atheist for me, then for you he must believe that a god of some sort exists but he must not have a concrete opinion on which religion is correct.

 

[Apolloe]

But if morality is to rely on something that is unchanging, then the nature of man is every bit as good as an immortal god.

This is just plain wrong, and I can't believe you wrote this sentence. The nature of man changes! It's not the same now as it was for the ancestors we evolved from, nor will it be the same as we evolve more. One man's nature today even differs from another!

To say that it's "every bit as good" is just ridiculous. I don't know what your definition of unchanging is, but it sure is a strange one.

I don't know who Kai Nelson is, and I don't much care. But if you're going to make an argument from authority, then I think I've got you there.

You've only got me in the same way that a fly can be said to have "got" the human it landed on. You can't just bandy around phrases like "argument from authority", and just hope they apply to the discussion. An appeal to authority is a specific fallacy, whereby I claim that something is true because an authority said it.

I wasn't claiming it's true because Kai Nielson said it it. I was trying to illustrate how the burden of proof lies with you. You and Eudaimonist are making a claim that the person who thinks that something evil is acceptable, is wrong in much the same way as a person who thinks the earth is flat is wrong. You claim that this view of morality is compatible with atheism - a claim which is rejected by many theists and atheists alike. Since your view is uncommon, and not at all obvious, it is up to you to give evidence for it.

And you're failing miserably. I'm not asking you to write a lengthy essay, or summate the learnings of hundreds of articles. I just want a broad outline, in a few sentences if you please, of how it could be that the rich murderer is wrong like a man who thinks the earth is flat is wrong.

You assert, but you give no arguments to defend your view.

 

[The Nihilist]

The only interesting thing you've said is that the nature of man changes, and that one man's nature is different from another's. If you're, say, an existentialist, then that's a fine thing to say. But if you do accept that a man's nature is that he is a rational animal, or if you accept that some men are, you are not likely to think that this changes especially often.

One more time. I'll bold it so you notice. I am not going to write out the particular arguments Aristotle uses. They are too long, I don't remember them especially well, I think explaining them to you would be tedious, and I do not have my copy of Nichomachean Ethics, which is the source material. What is important is not the particular arguments, but that Aristotle takes a starting point that does not require a god and can use it to arrive at an ethical system. If you want to know the particular arguments, read the book yourself. Or better yet, any introductory ethics course should cover Nichomachean ethics, so you might consider getting some of the philosophical training that you are obviously lacking.

 

[Apolloe]

But if you do accept that a man's nature is that he is a rational animal, or if you accept that some men are, you are not likely to think that this changes especially often.

You were wrong, don't try to justify it. I said that one thing required for an objective foundation to morality is an unchanging source. You tried to rise up to the challenge and offered a changing source as the possibility. It doesn't matter if it only changes infrequently (every million years), or if it changes twice on tuesdays. It changes sometimes, and so is not an unchanging source.

One more time. I'll bold it so you notice.

Oh, very nice. All the arguments you've cared to write out thus far have been wrong. So you think that bolding them from now on will somehow make them right?

What is important is not the particular arguments, but that Aristotle takes a starting point that does not require a god and can use it to arrive at an ethical system.

I never denied this - maybe I should bold my words and see if it helps you as well? What I said was, there is no reason to pick one starting point over another. I didn't deny that, once you pick a starting point, certain ethical systems will flow. I simply argued that there is no reason to pick one starting point over another.

so you might consider getting some of the philosophical training that you are obviously lacking

Says the person who thinks that A = ~A (changing = unchanging).

Doing your work for you, copying from wikipedia:

If we declare that the function of man is a certain form of life, and define that form of life as the exercise of the soul's faculties and activities in association with rational principle, and say that the function of a good man is to perform these activities well and rightly, and if a function is well performed when it is performed in accordance with its own proper excellence--from these premises it follows, that the Good of man is the active exercise of his soul’s faculties in conformity with excellence or virtue, or if there be several human excellences or virtues, in conformity with the best and most perfect among them (Book I, Ch. 7 Perseus Project Nic.+Eth.1098a14-15).

(I can't give link due to restrictions for low post-count - look up Nicomachean Ethics)

Does this paragraph describe how Aristotle derives his ethics from the premise that man is rational? Or is it somewhere else?

Until you decide you can bebothered backing up your assertions, there's little more to say.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Quick note: I'm not necessarily someone whose thoughts on ethics are limited to those found in the Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle didn't address a number of issues that one only finds asked in modern philosophy. So, really, I'm working from within a modern school of thought that owes quite a bit to Aristotle's basic insights and fits within that tradition of philosophical inquiry. I'm a type of virtue ethicist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Apolloe]

Quick note: I'm not necessarily someone whose thoughts on ethics are limited to those found in the Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle didn't address a number of issues that one only finds asked in modern philosophy. So, really, I'm working from within a modern school of thought that owes quite a bit to Aristotle's basic insights and fits within that tradition of philosophical inquiry. I'm a type of virtue ethicist.

Thanks for the clarification. As you may or may not realise (and The Nihilist suspects), I actually know little about these ethical theories you hold to, so I have no criticism of them per se. What The Nihilist seems to struggle to understand (ironically, given his pseudonym), is that the specifics of the ethical theory do not matter to my argument. My argument is that there is no reason to pick one theory over another, unless one first picks a goal. And the picking of one goal over another will be arbitrary. Happiness, maximising rose gardens, seeing hamsters flourish, gaining knowledge, etc. They're all every bit as rational to pick as the next.

I don't know what your ethical goals are, Eudaimonist, so maybe your ethical framework fulfills that goal handsomely. In other words, for my argument, it doesn't matter if I don't understand the specific ethical framework you hold to. I'm not arguing against it.

I think you and other atheists are right to pursue good - I just don't think your atheism gives you any grounds for justifying that pursuit.

 

[Eudaimonist]

My argument is that there is no reason to pick one theory over another, unless one first picks a goal. And the picking of one goal over another will be arbitrary. Happiness, maximising rose gardens, seeing hamsters flourish, gaining knowledge, etc. They're all every bit as rational to pick as the next.

IMV, it is the facts of human nature that give rise to a rational selection of that goal. Understanding the natural function of a human being leads logically to an understanding of the naturally appropriate purpose that is a basis for a non-arbitrary standard of human ethics. Discovering whether happiness or gaining knowledge takes priority as an ultimate ethical goal depends on discovering just what roles that happiness and gaining knowledge have in human life.

And this standard of ethics applies to human beings, not to rose gardens or hamsters, nor would their standards apply to us. There's nothing arbitrary about this, since context and perspective matter.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Nihilist]

You were wrong, don't try to justify it. I said that one thing required for an objective foundation to morality is an unchanging source. You tried to rise up to the challenge and offered a changing source as the possibility. It doesn't matter if it only changes infrequently (every million years), or if it changes twice on tuesdays. It changes sometimes, and so is not an unchanging source.



Oh, very nice. All the arguments you've cared to write out thus far have been wrong. So you think that bolding them from now on will somehow make them right?



I never denied this - maybe I should bold my words and see if it helps you as well? What I said was, there is no reason to pick one starting point over another. I didn't deny that, once you pick a starting point, certain ethical systems will flow. I simply argued that there is no reason to pick one starting point over another.



Says the person who thinks that A = ~A (changing = unchanging).

Doing your work for you, copying from wikipedia:

(I can't give link due to restrictions for low post-count - look up Nicomachean Ethics)

Does this paragraph describe how Aristotle derives his ethics from the premise that man is rational? Or is it somewhere else?

Until you decide you can bebothered backing up your assertions, there's little more to say.

I'm pretty surprised at your insistence that human nature changes. Do you imagine that a significant percentage of the population is without the capacity for reason? Or is it your conviction that some inert things are human? Do you have long, drawn out theological conversations with teapots?
Do you seriously want to insist that there are other members of your species with which you have absolutely nothing in common? Is there no single thing that can be used to identify something as human? If there is not, then the concept of humanity is both absurd and vacuous. If there is, then it may serve as a foundation for ethics.

 

[Blackmarch]

Christians, hypothetically, what would change if you suddenly discovered irrefutably that there was no God? What would change about how you went about your life? Would you kill yourself? Would you fornicate in the streets? Would you not really change anything?

Also, can we not make this a thread about what atheists would do if they found out there was a god? If that's what you want to talk about, make your own thread.

hmmm, I would be back to finding out what is the driving force or forces behind various phenomena. Life would be a lot darker.

 

[Apolloe]

The Nihilist,

I'd have thought by now you'd realise that I'm not some Christian out of his depth, struggling to keep up with the mighty intellects of atheists. The arguments you have given have not been very profound, and are easily answerable. So, if you don't understand why I'm saying something, you should ask for clarification, rather than assume your answer must be right.

I point this out also, because you've tried to be clever a few times, and it's falling flat for you. In your other posts, you tried bolding, and calling the Bible "scribblings of ancient nomads". In this post, you try a poor attempt at humor, asking if I have "long, drawn out theological conversations with teapots". It sets you up for deeper falls when you turn out to be wrong. And here it is again:

I'm pretty surprised at your insistence that human nature changes. Do you imagine that a significant percentage of the population is without the capacity for reason?

By far the majority is with the capacity for reason, and those without are the exception to the rule. As I said in my earlier post, "it doesn't matter if it only changes infrequently (every million years), or if it changes twice on tuesdays". That means that I might agree with you (hypothetically) that human nature is the same today, for every person, as it was 1000 years, for every person (obviously it isn't for every person, though). Now you should be asking yourself why I think that isn't a problem for my argument, because clearly you don't understand why.

I would answer the question you should be asking, but right now I feel very tired, so I won't.

Your position is amusing, given that you call yourself 'The Nihilist'. You are defending the claims that life has meaning, and that good exists, yet nihilism is usually a rejection of both these things. I wonder if you realise the irony?

 

[daniel777]

Christians, hypothetically, what would change if you suddenly discovered irrefutably that there was no God? What would change about how you went about your life? Would you kill yourself? Would you fornicate in the streets? Would you not really change anything?

Also, can we not make this a thread about what atheists would do if they found out there was a god? If that's what you want to talk about, make your own thread.

with all the obvious hoo-ha aside,

i probably wouldn't directly initiate any changes, but the absence of meaning at the sudden dispersal of everything i know and believe would obviously cause drastic changes. slow to rise, slow to fall... old beliefs aren't true anymore, they're habit, and pretty soon habits falter when stronger beliefs take their place, beliefs such as "practicality" and "common sense".

so, i think that a person's life will dramatically and obviously change, but just after the incident of having God proven false, i don't think most people will suddenly initieate a dynamic change in their standard of living. . . . unless something like anger or a long history of trying to force belief is involved...

 

[The Nihilist]

The Nihilist,

I'd have thought by now you'd realise that I'm not some Christian out of his depth, struggling to keep up with the mighty intellects of atheists. The arguments you have given have not been very profound, and are easily answerable. So, if you don't understand why I'm saying something, you should ask for clarification, rather than assume your answer must be right.

I point this out also, because you've tried to be clever a few times, and it's falling flat for you. In your other posts, you tried bolding, and calling the Bible "scribblings of ancient nomads". In this post, you try a poor attempt at humor, asking if I have "long, drawn out theological conversations with teapots". It sets you up for deeper falls when you turn out to be wrong. And here it is again:



By far the majority is with the capacity for reason, and those without are the exception to the rule. As I said in my earlier post, "it doesn't matter if it only changes infrequently (every million years), or if it changes twice on tuesdays". That means that I might agree with you (hypothetically) that human nature is the same today, for every person, as it was 1000 years, for every person (obviously it isn't for every person, though). Now you should be asking yourself why I think that isn't a problem for my argument, because clearly you don't understand why.

I would answer the question you should be asking, but right now I feel very tired, so I won't.

Your position is amusing, given that you call yourself 'The Nihilist'. You are defending the claims that life has meaning, and that good exists, yet nihilism is usually a rejection of both these things. I wonder if you realise the irony?

It was bad enough when I took you for a high school dropout who learned his philosophy from hacks like C. S. Lewis, but now that I find that you are utterly without a sense of humor, I'm feeling much less charitable than I was. It's the ignore list for you.

 

[The Nihilist]

hmmm, I would be back to finding out what is the driving force or forces behind various phenomena. Life would be a lot darker.

Do you really think it would? I mean, the all loving God who's been watching out for you is gone, but so is the devil who's out to get you. Things you would have prayed for still happen with the same frequency they would have happened at before. You learn that your successes and survival aren't the result of being favored by the king of the universe, they're the result of your own strengths and skills, combined with a touch of luck. Oh yeah, and you don't have to feel bad about sex.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Do you really think it would? I mean, the all loving God who's been watching out for you is gone, but so is the devil who's out to get you. Things you would have prayed for still happen with the same frequency they would have happened at before. You learn that your successes and survival aren't the result of being favored by the king of the universe, they're the result of your own strengths and skills, combined with a touch of luck. Oh yeah, and you don't have to feel bad about sex.

But having a focus for your life (serving God) dissapear... what do you do? How do you spend the time till your death? Whatever goal you set for yourself it's never going to be as grand and fulfilling as serving God. Make a million pounds? Yawn. Get a PhD? What's the point?
You could try and create a fascist empire to revive the Saturnalia, but even then, once its done (if you ever do succeed) what then?

 

[The Nihilist]

But having a focus for your life (serving God) dissapear... what do you do? How do you spend the time till your death? Whatever goal you set for yourself it's never going to be as grand and fulfilling as serving God. Make a million pounds? Yawn. Get a PhD? What's the point?
You could try and create a fascist empire to revive the Saturnalia, but even then, once its done (if you ever do succeed) what then?

You can do whatever you want. Get fat, get skinny, get cut, raise a family, fly a plane, hide treasure in a room full of arrows and booby traps, become a champion chess boxer, do anything. You can even kill yourself; I haven't because I'm not the kind of person to leave a party early.
And let's not act like a million pounds wouldn't be a nice thing to have.

 

[MinorityofOne]

My argument is that there is no reason to pick one theory over another, unless one first picks a goal. And the picking of one goal over another will be arbitrary.

This actually makes some sense, Nihilist. I mean, you could apply this same argument to religion, couldn't you? 'I like the idea of being saved by grace and going to heaven, so I'll be a Christian.' Most people aren't going to believe what makes the most logical or rational sense, per se - they're going to believe what 'feels right' to them. I realize this is a generalization, but I make it based on my face-to-face interactions with religious people of multiple affiliations.

This thread is getting too serious, so I'm going to post a story:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]

After a long, rewarding life, and a brief, painful illness, William, a life-long atheist, died.

William was soon surprised to find himself standing on a cloud, before a set of pearly gates. His body was undraped, but he found that somehow he did not feel naked. "Well, from the evidence, perhaps I was wrong, after all," the atheist mused, smiling in chagrin. "Now, I'll see if I can get admitted here, or... elsewhere." (William was thinking of Pascal's infamous Gambit, and worrying that he might have lost that particular bet.)

William approached within several meters of the gate. He saw nobody nearby.

"Hello? Is Saint Peter, or some other gatekeeper-creature here?" William laughed nervously. There was no answer. He came closer still. Now he could make out cursive golden letters worked into the filigree design of the gate's mother-of-pearl wings. On the left side of the gate was the word, "Atheist," and across from it on the other wing was the word, "Heaven." He could also make out what appeared to be translations of these words in many other languages.

William touched the right side of the gate with one hand, and found it to be unlocked. As he pushed it, both wings of the gate silently swung wide open.

William gasped as he beheld the revealed view. He began walking through vast green parks with ponds, streams, bandstands, palatial mansions, and wide, brick-paved walkways, interrupted only by a golden, palm-lined ocean beach in the distance. Everywhere people dressed in all skin colors gamboled, debated philosophy, made love, played sports, or simply sat about in the warm sun, reading books.

After a few hours of amazed wandering, William stopped to sit at one of several tables in a shady oak grove. An angelic server appeared at once, and with a silent smile, set down a huge steak dinner and William's favorite red wine -- just the things he'd been thinking of a moment earlier. "And yes, there will be strawberry shortcake with extra whipped cream for dessert", said the angel. "Be welcome, and eat all you like; you'll never get fat."

Just then, an attractive lady at the next table spoke to him. "You must be new here, right, William?"

A little flustered because he had no idea how the lady could know his name, he replied, "Indeed I am, Sylvia! Hey, I know your name!"

"You'll soon find," Sylvia said with a warm smile, "that you will know all sorts of things, such as names, that you need to know here, William. So, how do you like Atheist Heaven so far?"

"It's... well, Paradise! And so very surprising to me, as an atheist."

Sylvia laughed in a rich contralto voice. "Oh, yes, it surprised me, too! It surprises everyone who arrives here."

"How long have you been here, Sylvia?"

"I'm not sure how long it's been, but I died in 1782, at the age of fifty-seven."

"You don't look a day over twenty-five, Sylvia."

"Thank you, but nobody does, unless they deliberately wish to look more mature. Some do, you know, people such as George Bernard Shaw and Carl Sagan. But most people here consider age to be a bit of an affectation. By the way, the children who come here have a choice of either growing up at whatever pace they like, or of remaining children forever. Some adults even choose to become children again."

"I have so much to learn!" William complained.

"It should not be so difficult. But you seem tense, William. That's natural, in someone who's just arrived. Would you mind if I came to your mansion tonight and helped you to relax? A little company, conversation, and sexual coupling might help you to adjust, and I would enjoy it very much also."

William found himself not at all embarrassed to accept this kindly proposal.

"But why..." William gestured all about, "Why, Sylvia, is there a Heaven to reward people for being atheists?"

"Nobody here knows the 'why' of that, and there don't seem to be any gods here to ask. But we do know that this place isn't for all atheists. It's only for the good ones, for people who lived ethical lives and valued humanity. Ironically, it's for people who have done good deeds throughout their time on earth, even though they were not motivated by the superstition of divine judgement. Bad atheists, people like Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao, that sort never arrive here."

"Well, then, where do the unethical atheists go?" William inquired.

"They," Sylvia shuddered, "have to spend eternity in Atheist Hell, accompanied by hordes of zealous tormentors. You see, that terrible place also has another name: Christian Heaven."

[/FONT]

[/FONT]