Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism is that whether subjectively or objectively or both as my argument states, we humanists have a realistic and realist morality off which theists depend when they use reason and facts instead of our living off theirs as the so prattle. I find it paradoxical that subjective and objective morality can be one. I call the subjective one the wide-reflective subjectivism-that of Hobbes and Hume- that requires one to use ones considered judgment instead of ones mere tastes and whims, for example, valuing bi-and homosexuality instead of ones distaste for both. And this includes the objectivity of [1] equality and [2] universality. Mine is also objective in that it references the consequences to sentient beings and the environment just as science is objective -open to all- and like science,debatable,allowing for sociological relativism, but discounting moral relativism. To produce arguments against consequential moralities ,people use consequences so they in effect affirm them! We need no God to discern that murder,stealing and so forth are wrong! God adds nothing as the ignostic-Ockham argument and as the Euthyphro note. To prattle that why, His nature is good as Aquinas does, begs the question thereof. Our moral sense aids us, but we ever have to refine it, which we have so that we now have a morality better than that of the Ages of Faith, we act better as Richard Carrier and Steven Pinker delineate. Contrary to Clive Staples Lewis,even simple subjectivism in the hands of a Lord Russell can suffice. The simple subjectivism of any scriptures is flawed! Say no to that of the Qur'an, the Tanakh and the Testament. Theirs stems from miserable, miscreant misanthropes! The ontology for this morality lies in us and reality, subjectively and objectively. Thus, not only can we be moral,we have a sufficient,ontological basis for our morality!
Grigsy, mate, you may wonder why your posts have not sparked off lively discussion. I have to be honest and say that they tend to be impenetrable. I am not the most succinct and economical poster in the world, but I read you post twice and I truly have to say that I do not understand the argument.
I got that it should be obvious morality is subjective and that religion (wrongly) stakes their claim on morality subjectively while falsely claiming to have received it from an objective source.
And that only took 2 minutes to type!
Well, I agree, as anyone who doesn't believe in a supreme being handing rules and regulations down to us would. I guess that settles that.
Chango, thanks, but mine includes both objective and subjective elements. The objective part centers on public view as with science-tentative and debatable, and that it requires [1] equality and equity and [2] universality, applying to all.
Wide -reflective subjectivism refers to our overriding our mere tastes and whims with our considered judgments that reflect our seeing the consequences for sentient beings for better or worse that we discern with our evolved moral sense. The tentativeness we discern from how morality had evolved over the eons; ours is better than that of those of the Ages of Faith. We thus ever refine our moral sense: we have that inherent sense [ Of course, psychopaths don't.] to which we add new moral knowledge. We had thought slavery right but then we discerned how it harmed the slaves from the wrongs done to them.
We neither need God for knowing morality and enforcing it. Which theistic morality should we follow as He speaks with a forked tongue through the thousands of denominations?
Theists demand an ontological source for morality- that is true whether we exist or not. I argue that any such source lies in us and facts; God would not ontologically ground as again as you state that He is no objective source as the reference to His forked tongue notes.
Arequipa, I hope this is easier to fathom.
I depend on philosophy books primarily. They can be hard going, and my neurological defects don't help in getting what I glean from them across,but some laud me nevertheless.
I will depend on David Brink next time about moral realism. I'll try to be clear.
Last edited by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy; 10-20-2012 at 08:55 PM..
Reason: sp.
I find that rape should be considered wrong in all societies:; no ethical or sociological relativism should intrude. We all can see the harm done. This is a consequentialist-utilitarian view but all should adhere to it. This is an absolute. At a site, it was pointed out that a man stated that he innocently raped a woman. No, he raped her period! He thnks that with their heavy flirting and other matters and that she was drunk gave him permision to have sex with her. No, she wasn't able to consent. All that other is irrelevant.
With soup kitchens and food stamps,none should have to steal food. It is our duty to lie to protect the innocent from the criminal. Morality is contextual,not absolute in that sense Like science, morality is inter-subjective and debatable. Being the former, it is objective. Being the latter, ti's subjective. debate points in order to further our ideas about morality. Society then evolves morally. Thus, for me ti's a false dichotomy to pose subjective against objective morality. I n the hands of a Lord Russell, simple subjectivism can justify itself; in the hands of the writers of the Qur'an and the Tanakh and the Testament, simple subjectivism is immoral. That's the problem with any Scriptures: the mere tastes and whims of the writers without regard to the consequences for sentient beings intrudes. We need to use our considered moral sentiments in gong forth instead of our mere tastes and whims. Some people find homosexuality repugnant, but their considered judgments should make them tolerate it. I find morality as realist morality.
How do we reach the nihilsts to become moral advocates?
The Deity would have to discern morality before He could ever enforce it as it is independent of Him were He to exist. It serves no ends to maintain that why, His nature is good as Aquinas does, because that begs the question of that nature.
The Deity is thus not the primary cause in ethics and morality no more than in other fields. Were He the enforcer, He'd not need to make justice in Heaven but instead here in the first place! Why would the free will of the Hitler be more important than that of all the victims of unjust wars?
Besides, free will is a false idea. What we do have is determined volition, which can empower us but nevertheless calls for rehabilitarion instead of retribution.
I approve Kant's dictum to treat others as human beings,not as things. Thus, I rate higher than putative God who grants purposes to His " things"- human beings! What a travesty and blasphemy against humanity to urge people to get their divine purpose!
We make our own meanings and purposes, we get and give love and this one life suffices; We need no divine purpose and divine love and future state.
Morality binds even Gods! Morality denies the divine right of divine rights! God would have no authority over us and would not have the right to judge and punish us.
We find morality independently of any God. Never has divine enlightment happened whereby a progressive revelation occurs: we refine our moral sense.
Divine command theory depends on scriptures. Whose? Of what sect? All scriptures come short of the glory of humankind! That theory depends on how one divines HIs forked tongue!
We humanists do not rebel against God to evade morality but instead to affirm it! We certainly do not deny His very existence, even though in our hearts we know He exists! What double twaddle!
Haughty John Haught^ prattles that hope runs all through the Bible and that morality is a secondary concern. What hope emerges from the Deluge, from hardening Pharaoh's heart, killing the Egyptian first born sons and sending people to Hell? He tries to evade the humanist charge that his Scriptures contain barbaric notions of morality! What are the good and hopeful metaphors of the hard sayings that Fr.Leo Boothe and Fr. John Shelby Spong find in their Scriptures. They err in finding us being fundamentalist about this matter, but those Scriptures contain such, showing that they were hardly divine influenced,just what misanthropes would advocate! Again , no progressive revelation of morality occurs!
Revelations are all people's subjectivity at work! So, is all regigious experience!
This humanist adheres to the rational hedonism of Epicurus and John Stuart Mill, not that of Aristippus! Ours is long-range and includes knowledge, which coincides with Aristotle's eudemonia, whilst Aristippus' is short range, the spur of the moment, without regard for long-term consequences. Thus, critics err in denying this about us. Thus, again theists err in thinking we want that spur of the moment pleasure instead of following His "sagacious" commands!
Grigsy, mate, you may wonder why your posts have not sparked off lively discussion. I have to be honest and say that they tend to be impenetrable. I am not the most succinct and economical poster in the world, but I read you post twice and I truly have to say that I do not understand the argument.
Exactly. The way it's presented gives me a headache! He might make valid points, but the aesthetics of his post where so unappealing I couldn't get past the firt 3 sentences!
What I'm getting at is Aristotle's eudemonia- human flourishing-our better natures. I find that whether combined as in my view or separate as objective morality or subjective morality, morality guides us all.
By objective, I mean as with science, publicly viewed, inter-subjectively approved to make for objectivity and debatable.
By subjective, I mean what individuals' emotions find, based on our evolved moral sense, refined- made better throughout history. Wide-reflective subjectivism means that people use their considered sense of right and wrong to overcome their tastes and whims: people might hate others but would not harm them.
The position reflects that need no God to tell us what is right, and that divine command theory, that says that we need Him to ground and enforce morality errs.
We ground morality in our nature. Morality must reflect what is good for us not what supposed God wants!
Behold- all those thousands of sects, reflecting His forked tongue, give different commands on how to act morally!
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?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
