Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

    I'm curious how atheists and other non-religious folk find or create ethical rules. A lot of Christians assert that with out God, there is no reason to be good. I'm interested in turning the question around. What is the basis of ethics in non-theistic systems? Preference? Popularity?

    fwiw,
    guac.
    "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
    Hear my cry, hear my shout,
    Save me, save me"

  • #2
    Hedonism or nihilism. The former seems preferable to me but the popularity of liberalism among atheists would indicate that is not a popular opinion.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by guacamole View Post
      What is the basis of ethics in non-theistic systems? Preference? Popularity?
      It depends on the non-theist. Many of us adhere to a consequentialist ethics: We believe that behavior should be judged right or wrong depending on its consequences. Preference or popularity would be among the other options, but they don't fit with my philosophy.
      Last edited by Doug Shaver; 10-31-2017, 11:37 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        I think there is an actual objective "good" in the universe which only exists because God is good. Atheists will mostly disagree, and try to say what we see as good is doing things for the benefit of society or something like that. But then what does "benefit" mean? It means something "good" which again calls into question how do we know what is "good" or not?

        I mean if you look a Nazi Germany, it would benefit the society of Nazis for you to turn in any Jews you knew, right? But we know that is not "good" even though some of the Nazis would disagree and say it is Good. There is an objective sense of an actual "good" that we recognize, and turning over our fellow humans to be killed is not it, even if it "benefits" that society.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by guacamole View Post
          I'm curious how atheists and other non-religious folk find or create ethical rules. A lot of Christians assert that with out God, there is no reason to be good. I'm interested in turning the question around. What is the basis of ethics in non-theistic systems? Preference? Popularity?
          Reciprocity and respect for others.

          Treat others as you would wish to be treated. Don't treat others how you wouldn't wish to be treated.

          Initially co-operative tit-for-tat.

          Do what thou will lest it harm others.
          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
            It depends on the non-theist. Many of us adhere to a consequentialist ethics: We believe that behavior should be judged right or wrong depending on its consequences. Preference or popularity would be among the other options, but they don't fit with my philosophy.
            I never understood this. How could anyone really know the long term consequences of any act? An example: you save a 17 year old kid from drowning, that night he drinks to much to celebrate runs his car into a family station wagon and kills all five of them. Was your act of saving him good or bad?
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by guacamole View Post
              I'm curious how atheists and other non-religious folk find or create ethical rules. A lot of Christians assert that with out God, there is no reason to be good. I'm interested in turning the question around. What is the basis of ethics in non-theistic systems? Preference? Popularity?

              fwiw,
              guac.
              Another possibility: moral philosophy from Plato onwards. One does not need to anchor ideas about the Good, or about purposiveness, in theism, of any kind, let alone the specifically Christian kind. In one sense, I agree that without God the notion of goodness has no meaning; but taken in a different sense, I think that is a counsel of despair. It is right to do right, because right-doing is the right way to live; one does not need to bother with Divine revelation to do this: instead, one should follow one’s own highest and best and purest intuitions of what is right, & seek to learn both from one’s mistakes and from the ideas and mistakes of others. Good is to be done, for its own sake, because it is good, with no thought of seeking praise or approval; it is enough if one’s conscience has been well-formed, and is clear of evil.

              I think the idea that some Christians have, that without Divine revelation we would have no clue as to what is good, and would live like brutes, is false. Even if we did not *know* right from wrong, that is no reason to follow our basest appetites; we ought, in such a situation, to follow our best intuitions of what is good, and trust that the more faithfully we follow what light we have, the more light we shall receive. I think we should do this anyway. Even if - to suppose the impossible - there were no God, no Christ, no Heaven, nothing, Christians ought still to live according to the purest, best, highest intuitions of goodness that they have, because it is good to do so. They should still live like Narnians, even if there is no Narnia. (Puddleglum, in “The Silver Chair”).

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                It depends on the non-theist. Many of us adhere to a consequentialist ethics: We believe that behavior should be judged right or wrong depending on its consequences.
                I've never read anything about that before. The closest resource I have at hand is the wikipedia entry! I will educate myself later. But it's interesting to see someone explain it before I read about it.

                How do you reckon the beneficial or harmful quality of consequences then?

                Thanks,
                guac.
                "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
                Hear my cry, hear my shout,
                Save me, save me"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  I think there is an actual objective "good" in the universe which only exists because God is good. Atheists will mostly disagree, and try to say what we see as good is doing things for the benefit of society or something like that. But then what does "benefit" mean? It means something "good" which again calls into question how do we know what is "good" or not?

                  I mean if you look a Nazi Germany, it would benefit the society of Nazis for you to turn in any Jews you knew, right? But we know that is not "good" even though some of the Nazis would disagree and say it is Good. There is an objective sense of an actual "good" that we recognize, and turning over our fellow humans to be killed is not it, even if it "benefits" that society.
                  I largely agree with you--that's why I'm curious about how a consequentialist would explain how to measure something like "benefit" in consequences.
                  "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
                  Hear my cry, hear my shout,
                  Save me, save me"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Roy View Post
                    Reciprocity and respect for others.

                    Treat others as you would wish to be treated. Don't treat others how you wouldn't wish to be treated.

                    Initially co-operative tit-for-tat.

                    Do what thou will lest it harm others.
                    Kind of a pragmatic approach then, with a bit of the golden-rule and a little bit of Thomas Hobbes thrown in. In some ways this seems somewhat utilitarian.
                    "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
                    Hear my cry, hear my shout,
                    Save me, save me"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                      Another possibility: moral philosophy from Plato onwards. One does not need to anchor ideas about the Good, or about purposiveness, in theism, of any kind, let alone the specifically Christian kind. In one sense, I agree that without God the notion of goodness has no meaning; but taken in a different sense, I think that is a counsel of despair. It is right to do right, because right-doing is the right way to live; one does not need to bother with Divine revelation to do this: instead, one should follow one’s own highest and best and purest intuitions of what is right, & seek to learn both from one’s mistakes and from the ideas and mistakes of others. Good is to be done, for its own sake, because it is good, with no thought of seeking praise or approval; it is enough if one’s conscience has been well-formed, and is clear of evil.

                      I think the idea that some Christians have, that without Divine revelation we would have no clue as to what is good, and would live like brutes, is false. Even if we did not *know* right from wrong, that is no reason to follow our basest appetites; we ought, in such a situation, to follow our best intuitions of what is good, and trust that the more faithfully we follow what light we have, the more light we shall receive. I think we should do this anyway. Even if - to suppose the impossible - there were no God, no Christ, no Heaven, nothing, Christians ought still to live according to the purest, best, highest intuitions of goodness that they have, because it is good to do so. They should still live like Narnians, even if there is no Narnia. (Puddleglum, in “The Silver Chair”).
                      I agree with this. I would further add that I think the best approach--though I don't know if I can adequately explain it--is that we know that there is God because the universe has a tilt toward justice. That this is part of natural revelation and that we can deduce the character of God from the natural justice-tilt of Creation--hence we know God's character and his revulsion to sin from observation. That's part of why I argue that it should be possible to build a logical case for objective morality based on the universe.

                      fwiw,
                      guacamole
                      "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
                      Hear my cry, hear my shout,
                      Save me, save me"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by guacamole View Post
                        I'm curious how atheists and other non-religious folk find or create ethical rules. A lot of Christians assert that with out God, there is no reason to be good. I'm interested in turning the question around. What is the basis of ethics in non-theistic systems? Preference? Popularity?

                        fwiw,
                        guac.
                        Reason should be an essential ingredient in ethical systems both theistic or non-theistic---(maybe Christianity might be an exception?)---If we assume that ethics/morality is a component of our human nature/instincts---then "preference" would apply..... pretty much universally, if we assume that in broad terms, our human nature is similar across humanity.....
                        The more interesting question is---human reason can justify/find justification for the "unethical"---so on what basis can non-theists (and theists) take precautions against the abuse of reason to justify bad/evil?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          I think there is an actual objective "good" in the universe which only exists because God is good. Atheists will mostly disagree, and try to say what we see as good is doing things for the benefit of society or something like that. But then what does "benefit" mean? It means something "good" which again calls into question how do we know what is "good" or not?

                          I mean if you look a Nazi Germany, it would benefit the society of Nazis for you to turn in any Jews you knew, right? But we know that is not "good" even though some of the Nazis would disagree and say it is Good. There is an objective sense of an actual "good" that we recognize, and turning over our fellow humans to be killed is not it, even if it "benefits" that society.
                          Just because some confused people believe that it is in their best interests to legalize the murder other people doesn't make it so. Those confused people could be next! The reason it is an actual and objective good that murder is considered to be morally wrong is because such a moral law is in the best interests of everyone in society. Thus the adage, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Just because some confused people believe that it is in their best interests to legalize the murder other people doesn't make it so.
                            Jim, why do you get to decide who is confused? If taking advantage of a minority of the population - serves and makes better the majority of a population - why would that be wrong?
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Jim, why do you get to decide who is confused? If taking advantage of a minority of the population - serves and makes better the majority of a population - why would that be wrong?
                              Already gave my opinion on that seer, the evil you can do to others today can also be done to you tommorow. Ultimately, thats not in the best interests of anyone or society as a whole.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                              38 responses
                              133 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              129 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              80 responses
                              425 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              303 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X