Jump to content


Photo

Morality Without Religion


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
56 replies to this topic

#21 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:13 AM

First of all, enlightened self-interest provides a perfectly sound faundation for moral behavior. I want to live in a world where people treat each-other kindly, don't steal each-other's stuff, and respect one-another's feelings, both physical and emotional. There are two things I can do to make the world more kind and respectful - I can ask other people to act in a kind, respectful manner; and I can do so myself. Of these two options, the more powerful by far is my own actions. If I tell other people to be decent to each-other but I am not decent myself, why should anyone listen to me? But if I am a decent human being, then I am teaching by example already. Adding words to the equation merely serves to reinforce what my actions are already saying. So, if I want to live in a world like the one I describe, my course of action is clear: I must act morally, and teach moral behavior. What's more, I actively want to be a decent human being. I feel better about myself whenever i do right by another person, and I feel bad when I harm others.


This wanting to act nice moral belief does seem to lack any foundation in your own atheistic worldview.

If moral values are objectively true, they can't depend on national law. To exemplify this we could extrapolate on the millionaire example that was brought up earlier. Let's say our millionaire has made his fortune by hostile takeovers, buying companies splitting them and selling their parts. A lot of people have lost their jobs and incomes in course of the takeovers, but the millionaire has profited hugely on this. He has not done anything that is illegal, but is his actions morally right?

Moral values can not be due to some sort of social convention either. In that case all social conventions are equally valid and you can't say that one given convention (honor killing for example) is better or worse than any other social convention. And in that case you can't say that people like Martin Luther King have improved the moral standards, since the convention before his appearance was just as good, just a bit different. And sometimes you have to learn objective truths, like math. If someone teaches you that 1 + 1 = 3 you might get the whole concept of the objective truth wrong.

And moral values are not objectively true because how you feel, I guess that is a given.

But from your arguments in this threads it seems you :

- Either believe all moral values are only subjectively true, which one can argue that they are not.
- Or believe that there exist moral values that are objectively true, but you have no clue why.

Perhaps you should reflect on why you feel better about yourself whenever you do right by another person. Where have you gotten the idea of right and wrong from? What are you comparing against when you call something right or wrong?

This is actually the starting foundation for the moral argument for Gods existence.

#22 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:16 AM

The rest of the society in which you live. Because none of us want to be killed and eaten, we would eliminate you from society as a dangerous threat. It may not be "wrong" in any objective sense, but it is undesireable behavior. What do you think a conscience is? Why do you think that one person feels guilty and ashamed for eating a cheeseburger, while another gladly eats the cheeseburger but feels guilty about a BLT? Both of these people are dealing with a guilty conscience - but why? Conscience is not some innate radar that tells us what objective right and wrong are. It's a social construct that causes us to feel shame when we violate social norms. A drug dealer feels no pangs of conscience selling crack, but would struggle mightily with reporting another dealer to the police. Every social group has its own rules, and our 'conscience' is really our conditioning, telling us that we have trangressed those rules.


Really? And if the 'rest of society' in which I happen to live is dominated by a Joseph Stalin, or a Hitler, or a Sadam Hussien....and their level of morality then is it therefore quite all right for me to shoot my neighbor to help keep me or my family alive?

What you refuse to accept in this matter is the fact that your morality....whatever it is, is arbitrary. I don't have to accept your values and you don't have to accept mine. Without divine authority as the source of our morals ....there are no morals. Period.

Like Neitszche posited in his day, 'the re-evaluation of all values!" But what made Neitszche's values better than what he hated so much in his day? Human opinion...that's all.

#23 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:29 AM

The god of the Bible has commmitted acts every bit as horrific as Hitler, but it is considered "good" because god said so, and who are you to say otherwise?


In order to determine what is morally good you have to take motives into consideration. What motivates someone is vital in determining whether that person is to be considered "good" or "bad".

Hitler had evil, selfish and greedy motives.

What evil, selfish and greedy motives are you accusing God of having?

#24 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:37 AM

5. He can, but only what is in line with his character. For example I could go and drink some alcohol however that wouldn't fit with my character as I don't like to drink alcohol.


Good point Gilbo. Mankind needs laws simply because mankind has an evil nature. Legal systems are necessary to restrict someone who is evil from doing an act that is evil.

God is not evil and therefore needs no law to restrict him from doing evil. What restricts him from doing evil is his own nature.

#25 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:11 AM

1. And? I just demonstrated to you that using your logic Hitler was morally good because he was obeying the law, (they laws he made), therefore whilst some laws may be based on moral behaviour it does nothing to explain the foundation of morals and its objectivity... Since as you said some of the laws are based on morals therefore to use law as a foundation would be exercising circular logic. Ergo try again.

Huh?

Laws CAN BE based on morality does not mean that therefore all laws are moral. Your evocation of Godwin's Law fails.

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.

Let me try again. According to a secular, humanist, science-based worldview, "good" = that which is beneficial to both the short-term survival and the long term success of the species in question (Homo Sapiens in the case of human morality). "Bad," by extrapolation, = that which is detrimental to both the short-term survival and the long term success of the species in question.

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."

#26 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:16 AM

In order to determine what is morally good you have to take motives into consideration. What motivates someone is vital in determining whether that person is to be considered "good" or "bad". Hitler had evil, selfish and greedy motives.


How do you know? Hitler certainly spoke as though he believed his motives to be noble, pure, and good. Are you able to discern the inner thoughts and motives of other people, whether they be live or dead?

I disagree strongly that motives are a determinant of morality. Most of the atrocities committed in human history were carried out with the best of intentions. There's something about "good intentions" and a road, iirc.


What evil, selfish and greedy motives are you accusing God of having?

I'm not. I'm pointing out that the god of the Bible is unaccountable. That's all.

#27 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:25 AM

This wanting to act nice moral belief does seem to lack any foundation in your own atheistic worldview. If moral values are objectively true, they can't depend on national law.


The only objective foundation which I accept for moral laws is the evolutionary imperative.

Where have you gotten the idea of right and wrong from?

Human religion. The same place you got the idea of Thor, Krishna, YHWH and all the other gods from. People tell stories and create abstract concepts. Just because we can imagine things, however, that doesn't mean that there's any objective basis for those things. Imagine an invisible pink unicorn. Where did that idea come from?

This is actually the starting foundation for the moral argument for Gods existence.

It's one starting point, and certainly the foundation for C.S. Lewis' argument in Mere Christianity, but that doesn't make it valid. The biggest flaw in this argument is the fact that moral laws vary widely from one society to another. Pretty much the only "universal" laws are those which equate "good" with "the survival and success of our tribe," and "bad" with "damage or destruction to our tribe." Aside from that, everything is up for grabs.

#28 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:18 PM

Good point Gilbo. Mankind needs laws simply because mankind has an evil nature. Legal systems are necessary to restrict someone who is evil from doing an act that is evil. God is not evil and therefore needs no law to restrict him from doing evil. What restricts him from doing evil is his own nature.

(emphasis added)

How were you able to decide that God is not evil? That statement implies you have some separate criteria for good and evil that god can be compared against.

1) God is good and Satan is evil
2) Satan is good and God is evil

Without making an arbitrary decision or without having a separate definition of good unrelated to god or satan, how can someone decide that 1 is correct instead of 2?

There are plenty of non-god-based criteria that can be used to classify things as good or bad (minimizing harm, maximizing happiness, stabilizing society, etc.). It's been complained that these criteria are arbitrary or without foundation, but even if that were true (xanifred has given good explanations for how morality relates to the behaviors necessary for social living), without a non-god-based definition of 'good' the believer is making a arbitrary choice by deciding that god is good.

Relevant: http://en.wikipedia....thyphro_dilemma

#29 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:20 PM

1. Huh? Laws CAN BE based on morality does not mean that therefore all laws are moral.

2. Your evocation of Godwin's Law fails.

3. I never claimed that laws are the foundation of morality.

4. Law and morality should ideally go hand-in-hand. I have no idea where you are getting the ideas you're arguing against,

5. but they're not mine.

6. Let me try again.

7. According to a secular, humanist, science-based worldview,

8. "good" = that which is beneficial to both the short-term survival and the long term success of the species in question (Homo Sapiens in the case of human morality). "Bad," by extrapolation, = that which is detrimental to both the short-term survival and the long term success of the species in question. 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."


1. That was MY point, as I stated before,

" Legal rules are not moral rules. Hitler made his own laws... Using your logic Hitler was doing moral good since he was following the laws he made.... Try again."

Copying a point your opponent makes and then trying to claim that he made the opposite claim is not a valid debate "tactic", not with the handy quote function... Did you not claim (emphasis added)..

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 said that there is no accountability for the people at the top in atheist morality. You are wrong. There is legal accountability.


Legal rules can be based on moral rules. Atheistic morality includes codifying basic human decency into law, just as theistic morality does.


Oops....


2. As point 1 has demonstrated, its YOUR equivovation. I was merely using Hitler as a demonstration of how legal laws do nothing to rectify moral accountability / objectiveness.

3. Perhaps you should remember / read your own posts.

4. From your posts

5. Read your posts

6. Sure, you can try again, though it doesn't erase what you've already claimed.

7. How can there be a "science-based" view on morality? Considering that science is only testable on the natural material world..... You're only adding this to try and add some form of authority to your claims, however it has done the exact opposite.

8. You're using Sam Harris' equivocation of what "good" and "bad" mean... (especially since you claim "bad" instead of "evil" which is definitively a moral bad).. There can be good moves in chess, but that doesn't make those moves morally good, nor does the wind blowing in my face that feels good etc etc.. Here William Lane Craig demolishes Sam Harris' "logic"


  • Kristof likes this

#30 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:54 PM

Hitler certainly spoke as though he believed his motives to be noble, pure, and good.


Do you base that upon what Hitler said publicly or what he said privately? Hitler either lied to the public or he lied to those who he trusted as friends. My guess is that you are basing your evaluation of his motives on what he said publically, but I could be wrong, so I'll leave it to you to explain what you mean.

Are you able to discern the inner thoughts and motives of other people, whether they be live or dead?


No. But I can at least make judgements based on what people say and do. You could of course, for argument's sake, say that despite anything benevolent God ever said or did, his motives could still be evil simply because I don't have the ability to determine what his motives are, but you are the one that made the claim that God has commmitted acts "as horrific as Hitler", and my point is that motives would have to be evaluated to make such a comparison. I think you need to explain what it is you base your comparison on before demanding anyone else to discern inner thoughts and motives.

Perhaps a few quotes from the Bible about what God's motives are would at least give us the possibility to compare them with what Hitler said.

#31 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 December 2012 - 04:04 PM

How were you able to decide that God is not evil?


My post was primarily directed towards Gilbo and therefore based on a believer's perspective. Sorry, I guess I should have included a disclaimer :-)

Of course, no one can give absolute proof that God is good or that satan is evil without completely understanding the underlying motives of both.

My guess is that God is the good one...

#32 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 01 December 2012 - 04:15 PM

1. That was MY point, as I stated before, " Legal rules are not moral rules. Hitler made his own laws... Using your logic Hitler was doing moral good since he was following the laws he made.... Try again." Copying a point your opponent makes and then trying to claim that he made the opposite claim is not a valid debate "tactic", not with the handy quote function... Did you not claim (emphasis added).. Oops....


We're talking past each other here. 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. I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that simply creating and following a law makes that law "good." 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. 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. Clearly, we're not communicating on this topic.

How can there be a "science-based" view on morality?

Science is a process of observation, theorizing, testing, etc. A science-based view of morality (or ethics) would require that one observe moral, ethical choices and rules in various societies and species, hypothesize about the role and origin of these choices and rules, and attempt to prove or disprove those hypotheses.

Considering that science is only testable on the natural material world.

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. 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." 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.

If your definition of "morality" necessarily includes a supernatural component, then it is no wonder that we're not communicating. 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.

#33 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 01 December 2012 - 07:17 PM

There is a fairly widespread belief among theists that without God, there can be no morality. According to this belief, there is nothing to stop atheists from raping babies and eating kittens. This is not only incorrect, but it serves to put theists in a very bad light indeed. Here's why:

First of all, enlightened self-interest provides a perfectly sound faundation for moral behavior. I want to live in a world where people treat each-other kindly, don't steal each-other's stuff, and respect one-another's feelings, both physical and emotional. There are two things I can do to make the world more kind and respectful - I can ask other people to act in a kind, respectful manner; and I can do so myself.


Atheists can be moral and act moral, But they are being inconsistent with their worldview. I will define worldview: A set of presuppositions we use to interpret the reality we encounter in life. The atheist/materialist believes that nothing exists but matter and energy (or chemicals and molecules, etc.). Matter and energy can't give you a moral standard nor can matter or energy be moral. A moral standard can only come from a Creator God who is in authorty above man. Absent a Creator God, morality, by necessity, can only be subjective. If "enlightened self-interest" is your standard, then what would be wrong with killing your neighbor and taking his wife and possesions? You could subjectively deem this behavior repugnant, but your perference would be just that, subjective. You would have no standard, other than your preference, to judge any behavior moral or immoral.

You deny the Creator God who is in moral authority above you but then you become righteously indignant when you encounter an injustice. To do this, you have to borrow from the Christian worldview to make your argument. This is much like arguing that there is no gravity while standing on the ground to make your argument.

Of these two options, the more powerful by far is my own actions. If I tell other people to be decent to each-other but I am not decent myself, why should anyone listen to me? But if I am a decent human being, then I am teaching by example already. Adding words to the equation merely serves to reinforce what my actions are already saying. So, if I want to live in a world like the one I describe, my course of action is clear: I must act morally, and teach moral behavior.


"Decent" is a moral standard that can't come from matter or energy. Other than self-interest (subjective preference), why do you have to be moral and teach others to be moral?

What's more, I actively want to be a decent human being. I feel better about myself whenever i do right by another person, and I feel bad when I harm others. Studying other tribal species leads me to believe that this drive towards co-operation and respect is innate to Homo Sapiens, having evolved as a necessary part of being a tribal species.


Why do you want to be a decent human being who beels better about yourself when you do right? Why do you feel bad when you harm others? And why is this inate? Matter and energy could not give you a conscience. A conscience is not physical and not part of the physical universe. Again you are being inconsistent with your worldview.

Theists, OTOH, appear to believe that if there were no God watching them 24/7, they would immediately run out tosteal, kill, rape and pillage. I hear constantly that only God can provide a moral foundation, and without God we are free to do anything. So apparently the only thing keeping theists from going on a horrific rampage of brutality and lust is a cosmic morality policeman watching over their shoulders. Frankly, theists often come across as envious when they say that atheists have no morality.


I, as a Christian, do not argue this. Many theists live very moral lives. But what I can argue is that the atheist can't deem one behavior moral and another immoral if he stays in his worldview. To proclaim a behavior moral or immoral, he must step into my worldview and use God's morals--a God that he argues does not exist. When he does this, he affirms his worldview false and mine true.

The Golden Rule exists in nearly every culture in the world, with good reason. It provides, as I have described above, a rational basis for secular morality. One need not believe in gods to see that acting like a decent human being is a win/win for everyone.


But what if I do not want to adhere to the Golden Rule? What is your standard to argue that I should adhere to it? Other than your personal preference, you have none.

TeeJay
  • Kristof likes this

#34 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 01 December 2012 - 10:44 PM

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.
  • Kristof likes this

#35 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 02 December 2012 - 04:03 AM

But what if I do not want to adhere to the Golden Rule? What is your standard to argue that I should adhere to it? Other than your personal preference, you have none.


Teejay, if you didn't adhere to the Golden Rule you would have been weeded out of humanity a long, long time ago.

Um, Teejay...?

Where are you Teejay?

Teeeeejay?

Hey, has anyone here seen Teejay?

#36 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 02 December 2012 - 06:53 AM

But what if I do not want to adhere to the Golden Rule? What is your standard to argue that I should adhere to it? Other than your personal preference, you have none. TeeJay


Exactly. On atheism there are no obligations or moral duties to fulfill. Which means it has no authority which ensures that the same standard is applied. Its simply, "do what you feel like", which therefore is entirely subjective.

#37 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 02 December 2012 - 08:57 AM

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.

I never said or even implied any such thing. You misunderstood what I wrote, and when I attempted to correct your misunderstanding, you posted a bunch of quotes from me that said no such thing, and you acted as if they did.

Your claim: "you were talking about law being a foundation of moral accountability"

The truth: I was talking about laws being a mechanism through which even the wealthy can be held to account.

I never said or implied that law is a foundation for anything. You misunderstood. If you refuse to accept this, then it is no longer worth attempting to communicate with you in any way, since it is clear that you will see what you want to see, regardless of what is actually there.

#38 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 02 December 2012 - 11:08 AM

Your claim: "you were talking about law being a foundation of moral accountability"

The truth: I was talking about laws being a mechanism through which even the wealthy can be held to account. I never said or implied that law is a foundation for anything.



By your own words you call it the foundation of moral accountability, oh you wrote "mechanism", however in light of no other process of accountability and your complete insistance in laws keeping people accountable then one can only conclude that this is your foundation of moral accountability... Unless you can provide something else as a foundation, (despite it not being brought up before).

#39 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 02 December 2012 - 11:30 AM

By your own words you call it the foundation of moral accountability,

No, I do not. Either quote where I said 'law is the foundation of moral accountability' or retract your continued false attributions.

I am beginning to think this is a deliberate strategy on your part.

Hint: Rather than draw erroneous, speculative conclusions about what I might believe, based only on loosely-related things I have said, you could try coming right out and asking "what do you think the foundation of moral accountability is?" That's called "communication." Try it, you might learn something.

#40 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 02 December 2012 - 12:42 PM

Hint: Rather than draw erroneous, speculative conclusions about what I might believe, based only on loosely-related things I have said, you could try coming right out and asking "what do you think the foundation of moral accountability is?" That's called "communication." Try it, you might learn something.


Didn't I actually state that

"oh you wrote "mechanism", however in light of no other process of accountability and your complete insistance in laws keeping people accountable then one can only conclude that this is your foundation of moral accountability... Unless you can provide something else as a foundation, (despite it not being brought up before)."

That was your cue to state what you actually think is a foundation of accountability, rather than laws, even though the only thing you have brought up as per accountability was only human law..... Hence why I figured it was your foundation of accountability since you've not mentioned anything else.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users