When atheists disagree about the Objectivity of Morality ... !

[VirOptimus]

What part?

Pretty much all of it.

First you say god can change morals then you say he/she/it cant.

Do you ascribe to divine command theory?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Pretty much all of it.

First you say god can change morals then you say he/she/it cant.

No, I didn't say that. I was talking about the laws of God.

Do you ascribe to divine command theory?

Nope. I subscribe to "Creation Ethics," and that is a part of my subscription to an "Ethic of Care."

 

[VirOptimus]

No, I didn't say that. I was talking about the laws of God.



Nope. I subscribe to "Creation Ethics," and that is a part of my subscription to an "Ethic of Care."

So god cant change morals? He/she/it isnt omnipotent?

Never heard of. What would creation have to do with ethics?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So god cant change morals? He/she/it isnt omnipotent?

You're making a category mistake. Omnipotence has to do with 'power' and would more appropriately be a part of Meta-physical considerations and not Axiological ones.

Never heard of. What would creation have to do with ethics?

Essentially, if God is the "Creator," and more than a mere pre-creator borrowing from the essence of the Creation, then He has every right to handle and shape the moral course of His creation, including humanity, including deciding who lives, who dies, and when, and how we will live.

 

[VirOptimus]

You're making a category mistake. Omnipotence has to do with 'power' and would more appropriately be a part of Meta-physical and not Axiological ones.

Essentially, if God is the "Creator," and more than a mere pre-creator borrowing from the essence of the Creation, then He has every right to handle and shape the moral course of His creation, including humanity, including deciding who lives, who dies, and when, and how we will live.

Can god change morals yes/no?

Sounds like divine command theory to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can god change morals yes/no?

You don't get to ask that question without doing some prelimary conceptual landscaping in your axiological understanding. You do realize this, don't you?

Sounds like divine command theory to me.

It's not. So, don't get confused.

 

[VirOptimus]

You don't get to ask that question without doing some prelimary conceptual landscaping in your axiological understanding. You do realize this, don't you?

It's not. So, don't get confused.

I ask what questions I want.

I take it you cant answer it then.

And I’m very well versed in moral philosophy thank you.

I still think its just divine command theory as you give zero arguments why its not.

 

[VirOptimus]

Alright. I can respect the fact that you've actually put forth some some material. You're unlike a large number of your compatriot atheists here on CF who continuously hedge and avoid offering up their sources in support of their individual views. So, I'll take some time and research both Axel Hägerström and Joseph Raz and absorb some of their views on 'Legal Realism.'

It can be helpful regarding Hägerström to know that he very much answers Kant.

Raz builds on Hart (his mentor) and often answers arguments from Ronald Dworkin even if its not explicity stated.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It can be helpful regarding Hägerström to know that he very much answers Kant.

Raz builds on Hart (his mentor) and often answers arguments from Ronald Dworkin even if its not explicity stated.

Ok. I'll keep that in mind as I research these guys. Thanks for the input! It's rare to see that here.

 

[Nithavela]

It's almost as if "atheists" don't have to agree on anything except the existence of gods.

 

[AACJ]

Actually, what each individual atheist decides about "murder" will be a composite of various cognitive, emotional, and perceptual nuances arising out of their respective brain states along with their ethical understandings and various psychological motivations. Moreover, I'd be more prone to say that the personal Worldview of any one atheist may or may not play into his conceptualization about the immoral nature of "murder."

I don't think you're wholly wrong, BibleBeliever1611, and while I can't say I know your mind, I think I more or less understand where you're coming from. Would it be safe for me to say that you seem to be indicating that the typical atheist has a difficult time in establishing empirically verifiable and objective conclusions about morality, conclusions that hit upon something ontologically Absolute? And with this being the case, they can flounder in presenting something to the rest of us that seems overtly compelling morally?

Moral relativism is not livable. As far as I can tell, no one actually consistently practices such.

 

[AACJ]

When one atheist disagrees with another about morality, it sounds a little like what we find in the following video by atheist and Oxford graduate, Alex O'Conner (a.k.a. 'Cosmic Skeptic' on youtube).

In the 20 minute video below, Alex takes a little umbrage with fellow atheist Sam Harris's view that human morality has some kind of substantial 'objective' quality to it. Rather, Alex thinks human morality is firmly 'subjective.'

Is Alex right in saying that Sam is wrong about the nature of human morality? Well, watch the video and decide for yourself. Or don't decide ...

I wonder if Alex O'Conner is working up the nerve to attempt to directly engage William Craig in debate. Has he done so?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm missing some posts. I want them back, pronto!

 

[ximmix]

When one atheist disagrees with another about morality, it sounds a little like what we find in the following video by atheist and Oxford graduate, Alex O'Conner (a.k.a. 'Cosmic Skeptic' on youtube).

In the 20 minute video below, Alex takes a little umbrage with fellow atheist Sam Harris's view that human morality has some kind of substantial 'objective' quality to it. Rather, Alex thinks human morality is firmly 'subjective.'

Is Alex right in saying that Sam is wrong about the nature of human morality? Well, watch the video and decide for yourself. Or don't decide ...

Why would you think atheists would agree on morality? They only have one thing in common...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why would you think atheists would agree on morality? They only have one thing in common...

I don't assume that atheists will agree on morality. But what I expect to see and am not seeing often enough are instances where moral atheists take other amoral or non-moral atheists to task for their immoral improprieties. It would be the appropriate and ethical thing to do ... And when they don't, I have to wonder about the moral and ethical systems that atheists think they adhere to. As a Christian and as a social philosopher (or ethicist), I think a lot of atheists are deficient and too liberal, at times too morally latitudinarian.

This shouldn't be. Too much latitude makes for a pluralistic social world that can never, ever see eye to eye on the things that should make for a better world in the here and now. So, as a Christian, I'm going to press the charge of deficient engagement that many folks have with analyzing and evaluating the essence and structures of their own ethical (or unethical?) thinking.

 

[ximmix]

But what I expect to see and am not seeing often enough are instances where moral atheists take other amoral or non-moral atheists to task for their immoral improprieties.

Not sure what you mean. You don't see atheists condemning other atheists when they commit a crime? Hmm, I'm sure i've seen that.

And when they don't, I have to wonder about the moral and ethical systems that atheists think they adhere to

What system is that?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not sure what you mean. You don't see atheists condemning other atheists when they commit a crime? Hmm, I'm sure i've seen that.

They may offer their evaluation, but frankly, even on this forum, I don't think I see enough disagreement between atheists on various very important points of philosophy that are central to human life. There's too much in the way of atheists doing nothing but fighting Christians OR simply taking a more laissez-faire approach among themselves.

No, if atheists have integrity, both social and both, and a sense of responsibility, then they should speak up a bit more against their fellow atheists who might be promoting a too hedonistic free-for-all.

What system is that?

Whichever one of several ethical systems that any one atheist thinks he or she holds in his god-given brain.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But what I expect to see and am not seeing often enough are instances where moral atheists take other amoral or non-moral atheists to task for their immoral improprieties.

This seems to be a novel tack in your thread. Such as?

You mean something like American Atheists firing David Silverman for sexual misconduct?

Or do you mean having a different moral system is inherently an 'immoral impropriety'?

 

[ximmix]

They may offer their evaluation, but frankly, even on this forum, I don't think I see enough disagreement between atheists on various very important points of philosophy that are central to human life. There's too much in the way of atheists doing nothing but fighting Christians OR simply taking a more laissez-faire approach among themselves.

I still don't understand. Could you give an example of what you think atheists do that you disagree with regarding this?

Whichever one of several ethical systems that any one atheist thinks he or she holds in his god-given brain.

Ok. Not aware of any of these systems, but I'm not really into philosophy so...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This seems to be a novel tack in your thread. Such as?

You mean something like American Atheists firing David Silverman for sexual misconduct?

Or do you mean having a different moral system is inherently an 'immoral impropriety'?

That might be an example. Do you have a link to an article that you think represents best this instance?