1. We're talking past each other here.
2. I'm saying that in an atheistic moral framework - or, to use a more accurate word, an atheistic ethical framework - there would be accountability for those at the top.
3. I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that simply creating and following a law makes that law "good."
4. Obviously, it does not. I have no idea what you're talking about with your claim that Hitler was doing "good" simply by following laws he wrote, because nowhere have I said or implied that laws = good. What I am saying is this: An atheistic ethical framework would require that all individuals be accountable to the same rules, and that these rules be based on the Golden Rule.
5. I honestly have no idea what you're objecting to, or even what you're talking about when you claim that I am somehow contradicting myself.
6. Correct. And since my worldview posits that nothing exists aside from the material world and various emergent properties of that world, there is no contradiction. It would appear that you and I define morality differently.
7. Here's the definition I'm working from: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. I do not view "right and wrong" as anything other than "that which is advantageous to the long-term survival of the tribe and species" and "that which is detrimental to the long-term survival of the tribe and species."
8. As an atheist, I reject the proposal that there is some agent outside of nature which is responsible for objective morality. What I am doing in this thread is laying out a fairly common atheist (or secular humanist) foundation for moral behavior.
9. If your definition of "morality" necessarily includes a supernatural component, then it is no wonder that we're not communicating.
10. That's not at all what I mean when I use the word. I'm talking about societal codes of conduct which enable us to live together in relative harmony, not metaphysical concepts delivered miraculously from outside physical reality. It would be absurd for an atheist to appeal to the supernatural, IMO.
1. Actually no, you were talking about law being a foundation of moral accountability and objectivity and I demonstrated with my Hitler analogy that law cannot be a foundation for such things. You then claim that you never said that law was a foundation for accountability and such... To which I quoted you in your posts either making or implying that assertion. You now try and back out of it by claiming "we are talking past each other"... Um no... I've shown where you have erred and you just refuse to accept it.
2. How so when they do not get caught or are immune to legal justice, (bribes, handful of lawyers and diplomatic immunity)? How are they held accountable in those circumstances. Or are you just making an assertion without supporting it with how such a thing can occur.
3. The post I replied to (post #25), you state the following...."Since holding all members of a community to the same standards appears to be beneficial to both the short-term survival and the long term success of the community, morality-based laws are clearly "good.""
Therefore you are denying the very things you claim.... (as you did before)..... Bad form.
I demonstrated that success of a community (or individual) is not a moral thing, as its using the term "good" in a non-moral sense.
4. I was getting at that if you base your morals on human law, which is what I quoted you stating and implying, and since human law is created by humans then it cannot be good, therefore it cannot be an objective basis for morals. (The same with accountabillity, I believe the Hitler analogy works best for that)
However what is the basis of the Golden Rule, (which is stated as such in the Bible), you're borrowing concepts from Christianity to construct your atheist morality construct... Its ironic since the two are mutually exculsive. In other words why should people care about their neighbour? If I have power why should I share that with my underlings, what compels me to do such and imposes these moral duties on me...
5. Ok I'll spell it out..."I never claimed that laws are the foundation of morality. Law and morality should ideally go hand-in-hand. I have no idea where you are getting the ideas you're arguing against, but they're not mine."
- You post #25
Now look at what you have said elsewhere.
"All animals on this planet are held to the same standard. Human beings are a social species. All social species have behavioral standards which, if violated, result in the individual being shunned or even killed by the tribe. There is nothing unique about human morality
." - You, post #5
A standard implies human law because that is what human law is, (tribal law if I want to use your example of tribes people).
"Evolution-based-morality requires that all members of a community be held to the same standard. Atheists are every bit as much in favor of equal application of the law as any other group. In fact, it could be argued that many of us are more in favor of equal application of the law, since lots of religious leaders get "special treatment" from their fellow-believers when it comes to moral trangressions
." - You, post # 11
The above was in reply to my post about how atheist morality has no accountability for the people in power and imposes no obligation of moral duties of people to be kind to others etc, (which this reply actually doesn't respond to), however it does show you trying to equate human law with moral accountability and moral duties.
"You said that there is no accountability for the people at the top in atheist morality. You are wrong. There is legal accountability
." - You, post #14
"Legal rules can be based on moral rules. Atheistic morality includes codifying basic human decency into law, just as theistic morality does. Just because there is no eternal reward or punishment for breaking rules, that doesn't mean that there is no accountability
." - You, post#17
Um yeah, when a person gets away with something then yes there is no accountability, (at least for that person). The punishment being eternal or not doesn't fit here, its whether there is accountability at all is the issue.
6. Clearly since you only believe in the matrerial world, yet morals it a non-material thing. As I said, can you go to the shop and get a kilo of morals, or haow about a metre of accountability? You can't meaning they are non-physical, ergo defies the naturalist worldview.
7. The video I gave demonstrates that using good and evil (bad) in non moral terms doesn't give you a "moral landscape" its a survival landscape or a happiness landscape.
8. Being based on nature defies the condition of objectivity meaning you cannot have objective morals from human existance, since that is subjective by definition, (as others and myself have already demonstrated to you). Additionally no form of morals can come from nature, Dawkins agrees in that there is nothing but pittiless indifference, indifference = no good no evil = no morality.
9. It depends if you want objective morals or not, you already claimed that subjective morals are not good.
10. That is subjective by definition. Any form of moral worth we define ourselves is subjective.