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

Secular Ethics...

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

  • Secular Ethics...

    Are secular ethics based on anything other than opinion? Personal or collective? And is any opinion more valid or correct than its opposite? One request in this thread - please don't argue by web link or by cutting and pasting from other people's works. Use your own words.
    Last edited by seer; 06-12-2017, 08:51 AM.
    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

  • #2
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Are secular ethics based on anything other than opinion? Personal or collective? And is any opinion more valid or correct than its opposite? One request in this thread - please don't argue by web link or by cutting and pasting from other people's works. Use your own words.
    Utilitarianism.

    Kant's Deontological ethics.

    Those are the first two that come to my mind.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jin-roh View Post
      Utilitarianism.

      Kant's Deontological ethics.

      Those are the first two that come to my mind.
      Right, ethical theories based on opinion. Subjective.
      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


      • #4
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Right, ethical theories based on opinion. Subjective.
        I'm glad to hear that you're deeply familiar with both of these.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jin-roh View Post
          I'm glad to hear that you're deeply familiar with both of these.
          I have read quite a bit on both. Deontological ethics could possibly escape the subjective charge if applied to Divine command theory.
          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


          • #6
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            I have read quite a bit on both.
            So when William James wrote that ethics was first about fulfilling the definitions of simple, analytic truths, (e.g. "A father is one who cares for his children") or that it is unethical to treat someone as a means only, you still feel like this is subjective?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jin-roh View Post
              So when William James wrote that ethics was first about fulfilling the definitions of simple, analytic truths, (e.g. "A father is one who cares for his children") or that it is unethical to treat someone as a means only, you still feel like this is subjective?
              Completely subjective. Some men believe it is perfectly acceptable to treat their fellow man as a means only. That is a self-evident fact given human history. And our view may differ from theirs - but why would our opinion be more valid or correct? Because we hold it?
              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


              • #8
                Yeeeaaaah.... so here's the really important thing: William James never argued anything like what I said. Someone who had some familiarity with utilitarianism and deontological ethics, as you claim to have, probably would've caught that pretty quickly.

                Tell me seer, why are you pretending to know things? Does divine command theory allow for pretenses of knowledge?

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Completely subjective. Some men believe it is perfectly acceptable to treat their fellow man as a means only.
                That is a self-evident fact given human history. And our view may differ from theirs - but why would our opinion be more valid or correct? Because we hold it?
                I'm not sure if you know how ethics, in general, works. Of course there are conflicting views, and 'some men believe that it is perfectly acceptable to treat their fellow man as a means only.' Ethics isn't about "what people think/do" it's about "whether what people think/do is right."

                So glib responses that "all men have an opinion" are categorically off the mark. It's not that you're just missing the target, or that your aim at the wrong target, it's that you may not even know how to aim.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jin-roh View Post
                  Yeeeaaaah.... so here's the really important thing: William James never argued anything like what I said. Someone who had some familiarity with utilitarianism and deontological ethics, as you claim to have, probably would've caught that pretty quickly.

                  Tell me seer, why are you pretending to know things? Does divine command theory allow for pretenses of knowledge?
                  Jin, I was not arguing about what James said or didn't say I was arguing about the point you brought up (whether attributed to James or not). So stop being deceptive. And BTW the only thing I ever read by James was "The Varieties of Religious Experience" and that back in 1975. So I guess trusting what you say is the real mistake here.



                  I'm not sure if you know how ethics, in general, works. Of course there are conflicting views, and 'some men believe that it is perfectly acceptable to treat their fellow man as a means only.' Ethics isn't about "what people think/do" it's about "whether what people think/do is right."

                  So glib responses that "all men have an opinion" are categorically off the mark. It's not that you're just missing the target, or that your aim at the wrong target, it's that you may not even know how to aim.
                  Nonsense, tell me anything in this little diatribe that isn't subjective? "Whether what people think/do is right." And this is not subjective? Ethics concern systems of moral values, values which are fundamentally subjective.
                  Last edited by seer; 06-12-2017, 11:48 AM.
                  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


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Right, ethical theories based on opinion. Subjective.
                    This is obviously so wrong that I hardly know where to start.
                    "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      I have read quite a bit on both. Deontological ethics could possibly escape the subjective charge if applied to Divine command theory.
                      Which would contradict Kant's aim ()... In short: He did not want to base it on divine commands, revelations and stuff like that because then it would not apply to all people regardles of religion or culture.
                      "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jin-roh View Post
                        Yeeeaaaah.... so here's the really important thing: William James never argued anything like what I said. Someone who had some familiarity with utilitarianism and deontological ethics, as you claim to have, probably would've caught that pretty quickly.

                        Tell me seer, why are you pretending to know things? Does divine command theory allow for pretenses of knowledge?



                        I'm not sure if you know how ethics, in general, works. Of course there are conflicting views, and 'some men believe that it is perfectly acceptable to treat their fellow man as a means only.' Ethics isn't about "what people think/do" it's about "whether what people think/do is right."

                        So glib responses that "all men have an opinion" are categorically off the mark. It's not that you're just missing the target, or that your aim at the wrong target, it's that you may not even know how to aim.
                        Very important points. And a very sophisticated way of showing that seer is a pretender.
                        "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Jin, I was not arguing about what James said or didn't say I was arguing about the point you brought up (whether attributed to James or not). So stop being deceptive. And BTW the only thing I ever read by James was "The Varieties of Religious Experience" and that back in 1975.
                          Look, if you read that closely you probably would've picked up on his love for the classical theistic arguments and how he had to tie that in with his ethical theory -which again I'm not sure if you know much about.

                          Nonsense, tell me anything in this little diatribe that isn't subjective? "Whether what people think/do is right." And this is not subjective? Ethics concern systems of moral values, values which are fundamentally subjective.
                          You know, you keep using that word...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Charles View Post
                            Which would contradict Kant's aim ()... In short: He did not want to base it on divine commands, revelations and stuff like that because then it would not apply to all people regardles of religion or culture.
                            Right, but others have applied it to the DCT, not Kant in particular. But Deontological ethics does fit nicely with the Biblical worldview. And Kant was a little more nuanced - do a search on his "Moral Argument For The Existence of God." In a nut shell that God is necessarily required for morality to achieve its end.
                            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
                              Right, but others have applied it to the DCT, not Kant in particular. But Deontological ethics does fit nicely with the Biblical worldview. And Kant was a little more nuanced - do a search on his "Moral Argument For The Existence of God." In a nut shell that God is necessarily required for morality to achieve its end.
                              Quote? And how does it relate to his ethics in which he had another aim?
                              "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              160 responses
                              508 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                              88 responses
                              354 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