Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Non-theistic Moral Realism

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    I think to further your point, there are plenty of cultures that have not considered rape evil. Marital rape is perfectly legal in Saudi Arabia, while in the US it is considered horrific and unconscionable. In fact, here is a list of nations who do not find marital rape unlawful...

    ...Non-theistic moral realism can't account for why some cultures are fine with marital rape and why others are not, or who among the nations are right for holding one view on the subject versus another.
    Yes I think it comes back to who subjectively decides what is normative and intrinsically good.
    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


    • #17
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      That is not what I have argued. What I have argued that if there are not universal moral truths and a universal authority to enforce moral law then we live in an unjust universe where ethics are culturally relative. And even if Matt's objective moral duties and values do exist there is no enforcement mechanism, no mechanism that would differ from what we have without acknowledgment of these objective moral duties. So in the end, a Stalin and a Mao murder millions and die a good old age - they win. Evil wins.
      If you reread my post you find I am describing your view requiring an 'objective outside authority' as an enforcement mechanism, unfortunately the enforcement you propose in the after life is an anecdotal claim and does not explain the way the world works in reality as a more meaningful responsibility and judgement in this world that we can objectively compare. What about the consequences of the evil of the Inquisition and the Crusades? It is obvious the threat of condemnation of God in the next world did not deter their evil actions. It is obvious that Stalin and Mao lived to a ripe old age in this world without any consequences of the wrath of God. I do not believe that the threat of damnation in the afterlife has prevent people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao form committing evil acts in this world, nor those that committed evil acts in the Crusades and Inquisition. Evil does not eventually work in the real world, because eventually the evil is eventually defeated.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Right, but how does that stop a Stalin, or curb his behavior? A bullet in the head would do a much better job. Again, nothing really happens if he ignores these objective moral standards. It all seems like a rhetorical exercise with no teeth.
        God question; How does Stalin and Mao get stopped, curb their behavior? The threat of the wrath of God in the next world has not been a deterrent to curb this behavior. The existence of Divine or secular objective moral standards as far as I can see has never prevented some from violating these standards whether God exists or not.


        But cultures have generally have considered rape evil without consideration to these objective standards. Of course many cultures did on religious grounds. Then I would have to ask, when did rape suddenly become objectively evil? I mean we find it in the animal kingdom even with higher primates - is it evil for them too? Or it's not because they just can't grasp the concepts?
        Was it evil in the days of the Old Testament? Actually I find no definitive objective moral in the Bible that specifically declares rape a violation of God's Law in all cases.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-13-2017, 12:37 PM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          If you reread my post you find I am describing your view requiring an 'objective outside authority' as an enforcement mechanism, unfortunately the enforcement you propose in the after life is an anecdotal claim and does not explain the way the world works in reality as a more meaningful responsibility and judgement in this world that we can objectively compare. What about the consequences of the evil of the Inquisition and the Crusades? It is obvious the threat of condemnation of God in the next world did not deter their evil actions. It is obvious that Stalin and Mao lived to a ripe old age in this world without any consequences of the wrath of God. I do not believe that the threat of damnation in the afterlife has prevent people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao form committing evil acts in this world, nor those that committed evil acts in the Crusades and Inquisition. Evil does not eventually work in the real world, because eventually the evil is eventually defeated.
          It doesn't matter if evil men do not believe in final judgement, they well still be judged. Like your god will judge the Jews in the future. Which means that we do live in a just and moral universe, instead of an unjust and a-moral universe. And men can and do change their behavior IF they come to believe that some day they may face a just God, I doubt that any man would change his behavior if he came to believe in non-theistic objective morality since there are no consequences now or ever for violating that standard.
          Last edited by seer; 02-13-2017, 01:12 PM.
          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


          • #20
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            It doesn't matter if evil men do not believe in final judgement, they well still be judged. Like your god will judge the Jews in the future. Which means that we do live in a just and moral universe, instead of an unjust and a-moral universe. And men can and do change their behavior IF they come to believe that some day they may face a just God, I doubt that any man would change his behavior if he came to believe in non-theistic objective morality since there are no consequences now or ever for violating that standard.
            Here we disagree as to consequences in a world of non-Theistic Moral Realism. Non-Theistic morality and ethics is not subjective, there are objective aspects of morality and ethics in the real world whether God exists or not. Cooperation and a stable family, and community have evolved as necessary for the survival of the species.

            I will address this more directly as per the subject of the thread to stay on topic as much as possible.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Yes I think it comes back to who subjectively decides what is normative and intrinsically good.
              Through the history of humanity morality and ethics has been universal and consistent, and normative and intrinsically good, and no one person decides this. Societies and cultures collectively have evolved and determined morals and ethics to maintain social order and stability for the survival of the species.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Cooperation and a stable family, and community have evolved as necessary for the survival of the species.
                But why is the survival of the species an objective moral good?
                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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Societies and cultures collectively have evolved and determined morals and ethics to maintain social order and stability for the survival of the species.
                  You mean like the countries that Adrift listed where wife rape is legal? That should promote the survival of the species.
                  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


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    But why is the survival of the species an objective moral good?
                    It depends on how you define good. It need not be an objective 'moral good' in Theist terms to be the reason for morality and ethics in the survival of the species. In terms of the human species perspective it is indeed a good thing to survive.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      You mean like the countries that Adrift listed where wife rape is legal? That should promote the survival of the species.
                      Careful, the Bible does not clearly define rape as a sin.

                      One correction on the list is in China rape is illegal including marital rape, and recently homosexual rape of males has been added to the list. There are problems with rape in some European countries. I will go into this more in the future.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        It depends on how you define good. It need not be an objective 'moral good' in Theist terms to be the reason for morality and ethics in the survival of the species. In terms of the human species perspective it is indeed a good thing to survive.
                        So it is not an objective moral good for our species to survive?
                        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


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Careful, the Bible does not clearly define rape as a sin.

                          One correction on the list is in China rape is illegal including marital rape, and recently homosexual rape of males has been added to the list. There are problems with rape in some European countries. I will go into this more in the future.
                          Wife rape is legal in many countries, and since it certainly can promote survival of the species it must be an objective moral good by your definition.
                          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


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Wife rape is legal in many countries, and since it certainly can promote survival of the species it must be an objective moral good by your definition.
                            He's mistaken about China too, unless something drastic has changed since last March. Marital rape is still legal there.

                            Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/china-outlaws-domestic-abuse-160301053424903.html



                            China makes domestic abuse a crime

                            1 MARCH 2016

                            A new law that makes domestic abuse a crime has come into effect in China.

                            It is hoped the legislation will encourage more victims to take their abusers to court in a country where violence at home is still widely regarded as a private matter.

                            The All-China Women's Federation estimates that nearly 25 percent of married women in China have experienced domestic violence. But the real figure is probably much higher, because reporting abuse is still rare - especially in the countryside.

                            "From today victims of domestic abuse will be able to go to court to seek a restraining order that could force the abuser to move out of the home. A judge will have 72 hours to make a ruling," Al Jazeera's China correspondent Adrian Brown reported.

                            "But critics say the legislation still doesn't go far enough, since it fails to outlaw marital rape and doesn't place enough emphasis on health and social services."

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              He's mistaken about China too, unless something drastic has changed since last March. Marital rape is still legal there.

                              Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/china-outlaws-domestic-abuse-160301053424903.html



                              China makes domestic abuse a crime

                              1 MARCH 2016

                              A new law that makes domestic abuse a crime has come into effect in China.

                              It is hoped the legislation will encourage more victims to take their abusers to court in a country where violence at home is still widely regarded as a private matter.

                              The All-China Women's Federation estimates that nearly 25 percent of married women in China have experienced domestic violence. But the real figure is probably much higher, because reporting abuse is still rare - especially in the countryside.

                              "From today victims of domestic abuse will be able to go to court to seek a restraining order that could force the abuser to move out of the home. A judge will have 72 hours to make a ruling," Al Jazeera's China correspondent Adrian Brown reported.

                              "But critics say the legislation still doesn't go far enough, since it fails to outlaw marital rape and doesn't place enough emphasis on health and social services."

                              © Copyright Original Source

                              You are mistaken.First the question was rape, and not domestic abuse, which is a problem world wide. Rape is and has been illegal in China including marital rape. Your moving the goal post and considering domestic abuse. If you consider the present laws your double wrong, because domestic abuse is now illegal in China. Marital rape comes under a separate law and is illegal, but like world wide including USA enforcement is quesionable.

                              How laws are enforced is always a problem worldwide. Do you understand the problem of the enforcement of rape laws in this country concerning US campuses and the failure of the enforcement US laws.

                              Example of a USA problem:

                              Source: http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/05/10/texas-advocates-fight-prison-rape/



                              Texas Says It Will Ignore Rules Designed to Prevent Rape of Minors in Prisons

                              Linda Bruntmyer went to her grave thinking she’d won reform in honor of her son, who was repeatedly assaulted in a Texas prison.

                              But Rick Perry has decided he won’t follow those rules.

                              On June 14, 2005, Texas mother Linda Bruntmyer went before the Congressional Prison Rape Elimination Commission in Washington, D.C., and told the story of her son, Rodney Hulin, and his untimely death. Rodney was only 16, a waif of a boy at 5'2" and 125 pounds, when he was convicted of setting a trash can on fire in Brazoria County, Texas, that caused $500 worth of damage. The judge decided to make an example of him, and he was sentenced to eight years in an adult prison. His small stature made him an easy target for the hardened convicts, and almost immediately after entering the system, Rodney was raped by another prisoner.

                              After the assault, while her son healed in the prison hospital, Bruntmyer was in constant contact with the prison warden, begging him to protect her son, to segregate him from the general population. Her cries went unheeded.

                              “The warden said Rodney needed to grow up,” Bruntmyer testified. “He said, ‘This happens every day; learn to deal with it. It’s no big deal.’ ”

                              Rodney was put back in with grown men and was subsequently beaten and raped, again and again. After less than a year of this torture, he committed suicide, hanging himself in his cell.

                              Bruntmyer’s testimony was persuasive, as were her years of lobbying for reform. In 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice finally issued a series of steadfast guidelines for preventing sexual abuse in correctional facilities, under the provisions of the 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act. Among other protections, the provisions required that prisons house teenage boys separately from older convicts.

                              Base on the blanket biased generalization of your list, I seriously question its validity.

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              More to follow concerning this question. There remains a serious problem that the Bible does not define rape as a sin. The Baha'i Faith to specifically consider all rape a sin in all cases without exception..
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-13-2017, 11:00 PM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by mattdamore View Post
                                This response is keeping in mind your qualification "from a human perspective". Thus, your position seems to be that from a human perspective, you do not believe that theistic moral realism can be "distinguished" from non-theistic moral realism. Because it seems to me that we can, perhaps you could unpack that for me. For right now, I'll just say that it seems that we can because all I need to do to distinguish the two is to include or exclude the moniker "theistic". To include it would be to say that God explains and is the ground for objective morality; and to exclude it would be to provide an account of objective morality that does not include God as part of its ontological structure - that it would be sufficient to ground it in something other than God in order to adequately substantiate its objective status.
                                Back to the subject of the thread in respect to mattdamore.

                                There is a difference between the human perception of a difference between a (NMN) morality and a Divine objective morality than what would be a logical defense of an 'objective morality' to argue for the existence of God. I believe there is a foundation of Divine Law and the Created nature of humanity in the image of the attributes of God that is Divine ultimate nature of humanity, but arguing that logically on the necessity of a Divine objective Source based on the objective evidence this fails.
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-13-2017, 11:33 PM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                505 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                353 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X