Atheism And Moral Progress

[Stoic]

Most of society presently, and only in particular societies. And mostly in Christian influenced societies. If you were born in Feudal Japan, or Mao's China you would have a different view of what constitutes moral progress. But the fact is it does come back to personal preference, if homosexual behavior was made illegal and Jim Crow was put back in effect you wouldn't see those as progress. Even if the majority supported both.

Exactly.

[seer]

Exactly.

Right so moral progress depends, in the end, on what you personally prefer. The word hubris comes to mind...

[Electric Skeptic]

Actually no you haven't, why is finding the Mona Lisa beautiful progress over not finding the Mona Lisa beautiful?

Actually yes, I have, and I nowhere said or implied that finding the Mona Lisa beautiful is progress over not finding the Mona Lisa beautiful.

[seer]

Actually yes, I have, and I nowhere said or implied that finding the Mona Lisa beautiful is progress over not finding the Mona Lisa beautiful.

Well you are just confusing me now, please define moral progress then. Is it just what you happen to agree with?

[Electric Skeptic]

Well you are just confusing me now, please define moral progress then. Is it just what you happen to agree with?

You're doing it again. This has already been fully explained in my post #1730.

[seer]

You're doing it again. This has already been fully explained in my post #1730.

This is what you said:Each individual. I believe allowing same sex marriage is moral progress; you might believe it's moral regress. Since all morality is subjective, that's the only way it can be.

So again moral progress is merely that which you happen to agree with.

[Electric Skeptic]

This is what you said:Each individual. I believe allowing same sex marriage is moral progress; you might believe it's moral regress. Since all morality is subjective, that's the only way it can be.

So again moral progress is merely that which you happen to agree with.

Already repeatedly addressed.

[Stoic]

Right so moral progress depends, in the end, on what you personally prefer. The word hubris comes to mind...

My opinion of moral progress depends on what I personally prefer. From your previous post, I thought you realized this.

Not sure what it has to do with hubris, though...

[seer]

My opinion of moral progress depends on what I personally prefer. From your previous post, I thought you realized this.

Not sure what it has to do with hubris, though...

So if you were raised in 1930s Germany your view of moral progress may be quite different - correct?

[seer]

Already repeatedly addressed.

Then give me a straight answer: is moral progress merely that which you happen to agree with. Yes or no?

[Stoic]

So if you were raised in 1930s Germany your view of moral progress may be quite different - correct?

It would be hubris to rule that out.

[seer]

It would be hubris to rule that out.

So what does that say about your sense of moral progress? Rather arbitrary - don't you think?

[JimL]

Why for instance would it be immoral to kill a minority of dissenters to ensure social cohesion and order? As with the Maoist revolution?

You are answering a question with a question, seer. Dissent, in and of itself is not a moral crime. Dissenters, i.e. moral law breakers, are punished in accordance with their specific crimes. So you need to be specific as to exactly what moral crimes you are talking about. For instance, if you murder someone, then that is the breaking of a moral/legal law in every society as far as I know. So, if you are asking me why it would be immoral to punish someone in accordance to the moral law they've broken, the answer is that it wouldn't be. That's how the law works.

[seer]

You are answering a question with a question, seer. Dissent, in and of itself is not a moral crime. Dissenters, i.e. moral law breakers, are punished in accordance with their specific crimes. So you need to be specific as to exactly what moral crimes you are talking about. For instance, if you murder someone, then that is the breaking of a moral/legal law in every society as far as I know. So, if you are asking me why it would be immoral to punish someone in accordance to the moral law they've broken, the answer is that it wouldn't be. That's how the law works.

I was was specific Jim, the Maoist government murdered million of political dissenters, and other non desirables. And this was legal under that regime.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...s-2081630.html

[Stoic]

So what does that say about your sense of moral progress? Rather arbitrary - don't you think?

Subjective, yes. Arbitrary? I don't think so.