Covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism
Posted 02-12-2013 at 04:57 PM by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy
What do you advocate to get people to behave? What is your moral code? How do you ground it ontologically?
I ground mine in our evolved moral sense, our human nature. This sense requires no divine input. No progressive divine morality drives its refinement but our own trial and error- our discernment about how consequences help or harm sentient beings.
No holy books led us to condemn slavery; indeed, the Bible endorses it! We humanists, including those religious who search what is best for sentient beings without undue concern with their scriptures follow our morality instead of our following theistic morality.
We humanists hardly follow theistic systems: we don't condone stoning cheeky children or praising God for Hell. It took humanists to goad the Quakers to abjure and objurgate slavery as some of them had slaves!
That each of us has different levels of the moral sense and some apparently none, and that some do evil does not gainsay that this sense carries no force for us for being moral.
That it is in each of our minds does not gainsay that equality and universality inhere in it to make for that objective morality.
This combination of wide-reflective subjectivism and objective morality come together in the humanist ethic: ti's the inter-subjectivity that also make for objective morality, which we perceive when we see those consequences.
Most people can discern that rape harms people, physically and mentally and emotionally. We have to point that harm out for those who laugh: what rapist would rape that old ugly woman?
Most Americans are not for child labor as practiced under laissez-faire capitalism. But libertarians might be, because they don't have the required empathy for others that most people have.
Humankind received no stone tablets on that mountain where no Hebrews ever resided. We've done morality since we evolved. There exist intimations in our primate cousins.
We need no God to tell us what we already know: no progressive religious morality came about!
We need no God to ground morality. We need no God as the law-giver and judge. Yes, Hitler and Calvin will escape transcendent punishment, but in view of the horrors, we have no reason to assume any divine punishment anyway.
We humanists do not have the God called ego. We set up no moral code against others.
Despite William Lane Craig and Jason Dulle, how we ground morality suffice!s
How could a superfluity ground morality anyway?
We humanists discern the harm that enforced pregnancy does to women- those deadly illegal abortions and other matters, whilst the enforced-pregnancy theocons discern what happens to non-persons as tragic. We discern that those aborted for the most part do not have the encephalization and feeling for pain required to call them persons. The states allow for some late-term abortions for the life and health of the mother and for severely deformed fetuses.
Ti's not life that matters acorns aren't oak trees and fetuses are not persons. This reflects our moral sense and - science.
I find that life in prison without parole should replace completely the death sentence, because of two consequences [1] the cost of the latter with the cost for more secure incarceration is higher and [2] many innocent people get executed. With life but no parole, we can save more innocent people.
Unlike others, I don't find that the state could execute inherently wrong, just error-proned no more than taxation is not theft.
I favor legalizing prostitution. We already have laws to take care of its related crimes.
I favor legalizing adult consensual incest. I discern no harm for either.
What are your moral issues?
I ground mine in our evolved moral sense, our human nature. This sense requires no divine input. No progressive divine morality drives its refinement but our own trial and error- our discernment about how consequences help or harm sentient beings.
No holy books led us to condemn slavery; indeed, the Bible endorses it! We humanists, including those religious who search what is best for sentient beings without undue concern with their scriptures follow our morality instead of our following theistic morality.
We humanists hardly follow theistic systems: we don't condone stoning cheeky children or praising God for Hell. It took humanists to goad the Quakers to abjure and objurgate slavery as some of them had slaves!
That each of us has different levels of the moral sense and some apparently none, and that some do evil does not gainsay that this sense carries no force for us for being moral.
That it is in each of our minds does not gainsay that equality and universality inhere in it to make for that objective morality.
This combination of wide-reflective subjectivism and objective morality come together in the humanist ethic: ti's the inter-subjectivity that also make for objective morality, which we perceive when we see those consequences.
Most people can discern that rape harms people, physically and mentally and emotionally. We have to point that harm out for those who laugh: what rapist would rape that old ugly woman?
Most Americans are not for child labor as practiced under laissez-faire capitalism. But libertarians might be, because they don't have the required empathy for others that most people have.
Humankind received no stone tablets on that mountain where no Hebrews ever resided. We've done morality since we evolved. There exist intimations in our primate cousins.
We need no God to tell us what we already know: no progressive religious morality came about!
We need no God to ground morality. We need no God as the law-giver and judge. Yes, Hitler and Calvin will escape transcendent punishment, but in view of the horrors, we have no reason to assume any divine punishment anyway.
We humanists do not have the God called ego. We set up no moral code against others.
Despite William Lane Craig and Jason Dulle, how we ground morality suffice!s
How could a superfluity ground morality anyway?
We humanists discern the harm that enforced pregnancy does to women- those deadly illegal abortions and other matters, whilst the enforced-pregnancy theocons discern what happens to non-persons as tragic. We discern that those aborted for the most part do not have the encephalization and feeling for pain required to call them persons. The states allow for some late-term abortions for the life and health of the mother and for severely deformed fetuses.
Ti's not life that matters acorns aren't oak trees and fetuses are not persons. This reflects our moral sense and - science.
I find that life in prison without parole should replace completely the death sentence, because of two consequences [1] the cost of the latter with the cost for more secure incarceration is higher and [2] many innocent people get executed. With life but no parole, we can save more innocent people.
Unlike others, I don't find that the state could execute inherently wrong, just error-proned no more than taxation is not theft.
I favor legalizing prostitution. We already have laws to take care of its related crimes.
I favor legalizing adult consensual incest. I discern no harm for either.
What are your moral issues?
What system do you follow? Do you need God as the ground of morality?
Total Comments 0
