Page 153 of 173 FirstFirst ... 53103143151152153154155163 ... LastLast
Results 1,521 to 1,530 of 1722

Thread: Atheism And Moral Progress

  1. #1521
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    25,431
    Amen (Given)
    1792
    Amen (Received)
    5199
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Neither are gods.

    Nevertheless, the concept of “equal rights” has developed, whether you like it or not. They have been successfully implemented by many Western cultures with overall positive results…some such countries have topped the World Happiness Report and Human Development Index.
    Positive according to whom?



    No. I talk about “evolved values” as something that has demonstrably developed over time and adopted by many societies - Your use of “your world” being the natural world as opposed to your fictional world of gods and spirits I presume.
    What is your point? There are no objectively better or worse morals, just moral change.

    This is factually inaccurate. Furthermore, Christian societies had a great deal to do with the establishment of colonies worldwide resulting in the near destruction of the indigenous cultures of the original inhabitants.
    I said the majority of Christians for the majority of time had nothing to do with slavery, do you have evidence otherwise? There are two billion Christians earth today, more than at any other single time in history. Where are we practicing slavery?


    Yes, we saw how that worked with the Southern Baptist Convention.
    Yes or no Tass, was it primarily Christians that led the Abolition movement in the West? I will be waiting for your answer.

    New Testament principles have historically meant whatever its Christian adherents want them to mean. Slavery was justified by the judicious selection of biblical texts, e.g. Ephesians, VI, 5-7: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling…”
    And, does it say that slavery is good? That we should have slaves? And how are we to treat our fellow man - slaves or not?


    Also, the implementation of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts against “discrimination” was opposed by many white Evangelical Christians at the time.
    And how many Christians support it? Do you have the number for and against?


    Define “evil”.
    Some thing objectively immoral which doesn't exist in your world



    …compared to what?
    Compared to nothing. Maoists or Stalinist or Inquisitors or Racists are only doing what nature created them to do. Why do you dislike these acts of nature so much?
    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...

  2. #1522
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    564
    Amen (Given)
    15
    Amen (Received)
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    I don't know if it is compelling to God, it is just His nature. And I'm not sure what you mean by assertions - they seem like pretty classic attributes of the Christian God. Of course if you don't believe in God it would be no more than an assertion. Like the fact that other minds exist.
    I do believe in God. I just have never understood how God adds to moral justification.

  3. #1523
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    25,431
    Amen (Given)
    1792
    Amen (Received)
    5199
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    I do believe in God. I just have never understood how God adds to moral justification.
    What do you mean add justification? God is just immutably just and good. What else does the Christian need?
    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...

  4. #1524
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    564
    Amen (Given)
    15
    Amen (Received)
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    As I have noted before, there are four ways by which a person with a subjective morality can be "wrong" or "fallible"

    1) They may hold a moral position that is not consistent with their underlying valuing/cherishing and method for moving from valuing/cherishing to moral principle. Example: the person who values/cherishes all human life and believes reason is the method for moving from valuing/cherishing to moral principle - but concludes "randomly killing humans is moral." You cannot value/cherish all human life and reasonably/rationally conclude "randomly killing humans is moral." Something has gone awry and we should be able to use reason to uncover the problem.
    Don't you see how this point directly contradicts ethical subjectivism? If you can conclude that your subjective moral beliefs and desires are 'mistaken' and can be overriden by criteria of reason and rationality, then your subjective moral beliefs and desires are not always the ultimate arbiters of your moral actions. Unless you maintain that reason and rationality are 'rooted in' your subjective opinions, beliefs, and desires, but then you'd have to say that the same is true of philosophers, mathematicians and physicists, in which case ALL knowledge is 'rooted in,' ie 'begins in' subjective experience, but that trivial point does not establish that all knowledge is therefore subjective in nature.

    2) Because we all assess all moral actions from the perspective of our current moral position, if our moral position changes, we will assess previous moral positions as "wrong." This is no different then Person A assessing Person B's moral position as "wrong" because it does not align with their own. In this case, Person B is simply Person A at a different point in time.
    Yes, but this is the very point I'm making and the point you're apparently missing.

    3) We will also be perceived as "wrong" in our moral position by anyone who holds a differing moral view, and by society at large if the moral principle we hold is at odds with the inter-subjective moral norm. This happens all the time. If the inter-subjective moral norm remains across time, we will be assessed as wrong perpetually. If the inter-subjective moral norm shifts (e.g., which is happening today with same-sex intimacy), the new social norm will celebrate us as a "visionary" or "leader" and condemn the moral norm held by the previous society.
    The argument has to do with intra-subjective wrongness, about assessing oneself as being wrong.

    4) Finally, we can be "fallible" in how we execute our moral position, failing to live up to a moral principle we actually hold.
    We've gone over this before. Ethical subjectivism is about moral deliberation and principles, about beliefs and desires, not about failing to live up to our principles.



    In a subjective moral world, the correctness of a moral position is always assessed from the perspective of our own current position. We have a natural desire that everyone align with our own moral framework because that is what best protects/nurtures/enhances what we value/cherish. So we assess the "correctness" of all moral principles from that perspective. Person A assesses the moral position of Person B from the perspective of their OWN moral position - not from the perspective of Person B. Assessing some former time in our own history is simply a case where Person B is ourselves at another point in time. If we assess from the perspective of that former person in time, we see "no error." If we assess from the perspective of our current point in time (and something has shifted) we perceive "error."
    The point though is that morality is not a good fit for this kind of understanding of moral deliberation which is based off of one's current mental state. Your own explanation of it, above, where you talk about being mistaken in your moral beliefs in light of reason and rationality, points up the problem with such a simple mechanistic, atomisitic model of deliberation. The fact that it doesn't fit does NOT depend upon an objectivist assumption, as you yourself attest to, above, but is evidenced by "morality talk" of any and every variety. There is ineliminable moral talk by people about actually really being mistaken in their own moral beliefs and really having moral disagreements.

    Is there an objectively true moral "error?" Of course not. A subjective moral position cannot achieve an objective moral truth. This is essentially your complaint. There is no mechanism for stating, objectively, that a moral error has occurred. The error is only subjectively assessed, which you are essentially saying isn't adequate. So, when you boil it down, you are complaining (again) that morality cannot be subjectively grounded because then it wouldn't be objective (or have access to objectively true moral statements).
    The problem is not that it cannot be objective but that it cannot fit with the concept of "morality" as you yourself have shown above.
    I am not saying, as much as you'd like me to be saying it, that it can;t be subjective because then it wouldn't be objective. What I am saying is that subjectivism, in order to be coherent, would require a sweeping revisionism of the entire concept of morality which you yourself are not capable or willing to undertake.
    Furthermore, what's wrong with your analogy is that you have selected an objective reality to make your case. "Having an itch" is an event that has an objectively true nature. For me to say "I was wrong to say my nose was itching" from the perspective of my future self is to deny an objective reality. But a moral principle is an assessment - a categorization of action into "ought" or "ought not." It is rooted in our valuing/cherishing, which is a subjective reality impacted by our thoughts, ideas, opinions, and feelings.
    "Having an itch," like my moral beliefs and desires, is a subjective, not an objective, reality. I have privileged access to the itch that no one else has. Unless I am deluded, I cannot be wrong that I have an itch or that I had an itch one minute ago. Unless I am deluded, I cannot be wrong about my current moral beliefs and desires or about the moral beliefs and desires I had an hour ago. If I am accurate in my knowledge, such knowledge, in either the case of the itch or the beliefs and desires, cannot be wrong. The nature of the knowledge is secondary. The inccorigible nature of either kind of knowledge was the point.

    You actually make my point in mentioning that with my moral mental state, it is implicated in thoughts, ideas, opinions, and I would add in reasons, unlike the itch, all of which are trans-temporal in nature, which makes the idea of their being 'rooted in' one immediate, more or less arbitrarily chosen, occurrent mental state quite adsurd.
    Last edited by Jim B.; 09-16-2019 at 02:18 PM.

  5. Amen seer, Adrift, Chrawnus, Teallaura amen'd this post.
  6. #1525
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    564
    Amen (Given)
    15
    Amen (Received)
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    What do you mean add justification? God is just immutably just and good. What else does the Christian need?
    I agree, but God is also immutably wise and knowing. This doesn't mean we don't have independent standards for our knowledge claims.

  7. #1526
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    564
    Amen (Given)
    15
    Amen (Received)
    126
    Here's a youtube video that's pretty good. I posted it especially for the "Normative Web" argument by Terence Cuneo. One of the other argument s begs the question as stated but can be re-stated to where it doesn't.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkgD4w9w1k

  8. #1527
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    564
    Amen (Given)
    15
    Amen (Received)
    126
    Here's an article defending a secular, relatively weak version of moral realism:

    https://secularhumanism.org/2014/07/...rswithout-god/

  9. #1528
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,710
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1108
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    I don’t think so. An individual on an island would develop a life-style that suits his needs, not a moral system per se. Whereas individuals living in community need to temper their individual needs so as to not impinge on those of others. Hence a system of rules is developed to which all can agree for the effective maintenance of society. And this we call morality.
    I've done a bit of poking around, visiting at least five different dictionaries and philosophical sources. All of the definitions of "moral" and "morality" are some variation of: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." Not a single one specifies that the behavior must be related to interpersonal interaction. I stand by my original post: morality is about sorting action into "ought" and "ought not." The term "morality" is generally applied when the behavior relates to the things we value/cherish most deeply (i.e., life, liberty, happiness, etc.). That behavior is commonly associated with interactions in the context of a society, but are not necessarily so related. Examples of the latter include prohibitions against such things as suicide and masturbation. These prohibitions can arise with or without a society/culture to relate them to.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  10. #1529
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    25,431
    Amen (Given)
    1792
    Amen (Received)
    5199
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    I agree, but God is also immutably wise and knowing. This doesn't mean we don't have independent standards for our knowledge claims.
    Well since I believe that God is also immutably rational, the very laws of logic are sourced in His being. You seem to be suggesting that there are logical or moral truths that are independent of God.
    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...

  11. #1530
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,710
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1108
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Well since I believe that God is also immutably rational, the very laws of logic are sourced in His being. You seem to be suggesting that there are logical or moral truths that are independent of God.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •