What would change?

[The Nihilist]

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.

No, it does make sense, and it's even an interesting point. The problem, though, was whether an atheist could get his values from some objective, unchanging source. So what, in the course of a normal conversation, would be an interesting thing to say, in this case, it represents some goalpost moving.

 

[MinorityofOne]

No, it does make sense, and it's even an interesting point. The problem, though, was whether an atheist could get his values from some objective, unchanging source. So what, in the course of a normal conversation, would be an interesting thing to say, in this case, it represents some goalpost moving.

Hot yam, I have interesting things to say that are logically fallacious.

And back on topic, why not. Athiests can get their values from objective, unchanging sources. Religious people can get their ethics from their holy books (objective, unchanging sources). Athiests can get theirs from philosophical handbooks (objective, unchanging sources - e.g., Kant's 'Metaphysics of Morals' ).

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

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.

Exactly. Imagine having known what life was basically all about, having a genuine sense of direction, and then losing that and finding out its basically just one long [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] to distract yourself from the futility of existence.

And let's not act like a million pounds wouldn't be a nice thing to have.

Well only if you have something to do with it.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Hot yam, I have interesting things to say that are logically fallacious.

And back on topic, why not. Athiests can get their values from objective, unchanging sources. Religious people can get their ethics from their holy books (objective, unchanging sources). Athiests can get theirs from philosophical handbooks (objective, unchanging sources - e.g., Kant's 'Metaphysics of Morals' ).

I think if you believe there is an objective morality you implictly affirm the existence of a god. Because an objective morality is an external authority, and ...presumably, although I suppose it actually might be more limited, one that is above everything else. Even a set of rules can be a god. The "Goddess Reason" was not unpopular in her shortlived day.

 

[The Nihilist]

I think if you believe there is an objective morality you implictly affirm the existence of a god. Because an objective morality is an external authority, and ...presumably, although I suppose it actually might be more limited, one that is above everything else. Even a set of rules can be a god. The "Goddess Reason" was not unpopular in her shortlived day.

I think you're right if we conceive of morality as a list of rules, or even as a generalization from which we can describe a list of rules, because without some kind of metaphysical guarantor, there's no reason to follow them. Virtue ethics, though doesn't depend on a metaphysical guarantor. If you were to ask for a list of rules that a virtue ethicist would write, the glib, one sentence answer would be "anything that a virtuous person would do."

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

I think you're right if we conceive of morality as a list of rules, or even as a generalization from which we can describe a list of rules, because without some kind of metaphysical guarantor, there's no reason to follow them. Virtue ethics, though doesn't depend on a metaphysical guarantor. If you were to ask for a list of rules that a virtue ethicist would write, the glib, one sentence answer would be "anything that a virtuous person would do."

All that does is make the image of the "virtuous person" god.

 

[The Nihilist]

All that does is make the image of the "virtuous person" god.

Not exactly. Because it's not a list of rules, it's not a terribly precise morality in a lot of ways. An example that Aristotle gives as a display of virtue was an Athenian defense of a temple in the face of the Persian advance. The Athenians were citizens, but they weren't warriors. The trained warriors who were with the Athenians fled, but out of courage and piety, the Athenians remained and were killed. They did not do this because they wanted to be virtuous, or because they wanted to show that they were virtuous, but because they were virtuous. To make a list of what a virtuous person would do is a highly artificial way of being a virtue ethicist.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Not exactly. Because it's not a list of rules, it's not a terribly precise morality in a lot of ways. An example that Aristotle gives as a display of virtue was an Athenian defense of a temple in the face of the Persian advance. The Athenians were citizens, but they weren't warriors. The trained warriors who were with the Athenians fled, but out of courage and piety, the Athenians remained and were killed. They did not do this because they wanted to be virtuous, or because they wanted to show that they were virtuous, but because they were virtuous. To make a list of what a virtuous person would do is a highly artificial way of being a virtue ethicist.

I'm not really talking about a list, more sort of an ideal form.

 

[The Nihilist]

I'm not really talking about a list, more sort of an ideal form.

To emulate a virtuous person as an ideal of humanity is different than being obedient to God, isn't it?

 

[MinorityofOne]

I think if you believe there is an objective morality you implictly affirm the existence of a god. Because an objective morality is an external authority, and ...presumably, although I suppose it actually might be more limited, one that is above everything else. Even a set of rules can be a god. The "Goddess Reason" was not unpopular in her shortlived day.

This reminds me of the movie 'You Kill Me'. Great movie, you should watch it. Ben Kingsley's god is the golden gate bridge.

Also, some philosophers describe objective morality as an internal authority... for example, Kant. He basically writes that there is a universal moral law, but not one stemming from god or an external source. He backs up this claim with plenty of proof, obviously, but I won't list all that here. You're free to look it up if you please, though.

 

[Eudaimonist]

To make a list of what a virtuous person would do is a highly artificial way of being a virtue ethicist.

True. At best, one should speak of what values virtuous people aim to achieve. But part of Aristotle's genius, IMO, is that he saw the need for the exercise of practical wisdom (phronesis) in making ethical decisions in the context at hand. There is no simple set of rules that one can simply follow by rote and be a virtuous person, although ethical training for the very young might start this way. Virtue requires more than this -- it requires insight. Life situations are too complex for rule-following. A good example is in Victor Hugo's Les Miserable, where a nun who followed honesty with others as an absolute moral rule finds herself lying to save someone's life.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

To emulate a virtuous person as an ideal of humanity is different than being obedient to God, isn't it?

I would say it is not different to believing in a god. But is different to believing in the God.

 

[MinorityofOne]

I would say it is not different to believing in a god. But is different to believing in the God.

A god/The God, according to dictionary.com, is...

a supreme being according to some particular conception.

...and a 'being' generally means a living entity, not a set of rules or an ethical standard.

For example, you would probably not say that the 'Bible' is the Christian God. even though the majority of what you believe is written in that book.

In the same way, an ethical standard would not be your 'god', although it would be a guiding force in your life. You would attempt to follow it as passionately as Christians follow their beliefs, but again, this does not make it a 'god'. You do not have to worship your ethical standard. Your ethical standard does not demand a holy day for itself. It does not proclaim that you should eat it's flesh and drink it's blood.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

A god/The God, according to dictionary.com, is...

a supreme being according to some particular conception.

...and a 'being' generally means a living entity, not a set of rules or an ethical standard.

My definition of a god is an supreme authority.

For example, you would probably not say that the 'Bible' is the Christian God. even though the majority of what you believe is written in that book.

1) The majority of what I believe probably isn't in the bible. I believe a lot of things which man discovered by means other than Scripture. 2) Some people do seem to engage in bibliolatry imho.

In the same way, an ethical standard would not be your 'god', although it would be a guiding force in your life. You would attempt to follow it as passionately as Christians follow their beliefs, but again, this does not make it a 'god'. You do not have to worship your ethical standard. Your ethical standard does not demand a holy day for itself. It does not proclaim that you should eat it's flesh and drink it's blood.

Different gods naturally demand different things of their devotees.

 

[MinorityofOne]

My definition of a god is an supreme authority.

In that case, you're right - a standard of ethics could be defined as a 'god', according to your definition.

1) The majority of what I believe probably isn't in the bible. I believe a lot of things which man discovered by means other than Scripture.

Ah, my bad. I presumed too much.

 

[-Vincent-]

Life situations are too complex for rule-following. A good example is in Victor Hugo's Les Miserable, where a nun who followed honesty with others as an absolute moral rule finds herself lying to save someone's life.

Of course she would lie to save someones life. Among the rules there is no rule against that. The ninth commandment of the decalogue forbids false witness that is harmful to your neighbor. You can lie to save someones life because the prohibition of murder is a higher ranking commandment.

The Rabbis say that you may break any of the commandments if the purpose is to save someones life.

Rabbis rule....

 

[Eudaimonist]

The ninth commandment of the decalogue forbids false witness that is harmful to your neighbor.

This is the English translation I am most familiar with:

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

Funny, I don't see anything there about "harmful to your neighbor". Is that in the original Hebrew?

You can lie to save someones life because the prohibition of murder is a higher ranking commandment.

I don't see anything there about "ranks". At least, not from Yahweh.

The Rabbis say that you may break any of the commandments if the purpose is to save someones life.

Of course the Rabbis would have to say that. Any robotic following of the Ten Commandments as stated would have to crash into contradictions.

Anyway, I don't think that Victor Hugo was criticizing Christianity, but rather he was criticizing the mindless following of rules. He would have approved of the Rabbis.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[-Vincent-]

This is the English translation I am most familiar with:

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

Funny, I don't see anything there about "harmful to your neighbor". Is that in the original Hebrew?



I don't see anything there about "ranks". At least, not from Yahweh.



Of course the Rabbis would have to say that. Any robotic following of the Ten Commandments as stated would have to crash into contradictions.

Anyway, I don't think that Victor Hugo was criticizing Christianity, but rather he was criticizing the mindless following of rules. He would have approved of the Rabbis.

Thank you for sharing....

 

[Eudaimonist]

Thank you for sharing....

You're most welcome.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JesusbeLovin]

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.

Before this question can be answered you would need to be more specific about the state of mind of the rich murderer, and the assumptions of morality within your example.

If the rich murderer believes that it is okay to murder and be rich, but in fact you assume murder and the possession of riches to be wrong, then the analogy can fit.

If the rich murderer knows he is wrong for murdering someone and for being rich, but does it anyway then the analogy cannot be made.