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.
ethics without God is possible
If you agree that man is a rational animal, then you're probably going to end up agreeing with Aristotle
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?
No, if man is rational then it doesn't work.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
so you might consider getting some of the philosophical training that you are obviously lacking
(I can't give link due to restrictions for low post-count - look up Nicomachean Ethics)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 souls 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).
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.
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.
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.
hmmm, I would be back to finding out what is the driving force or forces behind various phenomena. Life would be a lot darker.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.
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?
with all the obvious hoo-ha aside,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.
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?
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.hmmm, I would be back to finding out what is the driving force or forces behind various phenomena. Life would be a lot darker.
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?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.
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.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?
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.
Storytime said: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."
Storytime said:[/FONT]
Storytime said:[/FONT]
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?