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.
Can atheists be moral agents?, . . . of course they can. However, they cannot justify their morality in any objective moral foundation.
They can try, but it becomes logically incoherent. They have to borrow from a theistic worldview
That is the conceit of every theist who I've ever engaged with on the subject of morality or ethics. I think they are confused about who is borrowing from whom.
Religions exist within a society consisting of other people, some of whom aren't the same religion, and some of whom have no religion whatsoever. Society determines what is moral, including the behavior of houses of worship. That is why even though our society cuts religions a lot of slack, when they start, e.g., diddling little kids, they end up on the receiving end of a world of social sanctions. The local Catholic diocese here had to file for bankruptcy because of that "higher morality" that descended upon them, lol.
That is the conceit of every theist who I've ever engaged with on the subject of morality or ethics. I think they are confused about who is borrowing from whom.
Religions exist within a society consisting of other people, some of whom aren't the same religion, and some of whom have no religion whatsoever. Society determines what is moral, including the behavior of houses of worship. That is why even though our society cuts religions a lot of slack, when they start, e.g., diddling little kids, they end up on the receiving end of a world of social sanctions. The local Catholic diocese here had to file for bankruptcy because of that "higher morality" that descended upon them, lol.
If there is no objective standard to base morality on then morality is subjective. You can't objectively say anything is 'wrong'
I'm not catholic, not sure why you brought that up.
If there is no objective standard to base morality on then morality is subjective. You can't objectively say anything is 'wrong'
I'm not catholic, not sure why you brought that up.
I didn't think you were catholic ... nor was that remotely my point. It was just an example of how theists are subject to secular morality, not the other way around where the secular world is held in check from going off the rails raping and pillaging by the superior morality of Christianity or whatever. Whatever religion or sect you subscribe to, do bad things and you'll discover there are consequences, and they don't proceed from god, but from the surrounding society.
The question of the subjectivity of moral codes is a separate one. A thing is wrong if it's harmful / hurtful. That is not entirely unsubjective but most people can agree on about where to draw such lines. It isn't really hard, just listen to and believe those who have been harmed, basically. You were stolen from, what have you had to do without, how did it make you feel? How can you be made whole? Who is responsible to do so?
All this obsession with morals being "meaningless" if they are not "objective" is just nonsense. It's asking the wrong question. Approximations serve us well all the time in our everyday lives. Everything doesn't have to be decreed in writing from some celestial Enforcer to be valid and useful. Also, good deeds can be done for reasons other than the terror of eternal perdition.
I didn't think you were catholic ... nor was that remotely my point. It was just an example of how theists are subject to secular morality, not the other way around where the secular world is held in check from going off the rails raping and pillaging by the superior morality of Christianity or whatever. Whatever religion or sect you subscribe to, do bad things and you'll discover there are consequences, and they don't proceed from god, but from the surrounding society.
The question of the subjectivity of moral codes is a separate one. A thing is wrong if it's harmful / hurtful. That is not entirely unsubjective but most people can agree on about where to draw such lines. It isn't really hard, just listen to and believe those who have been harmed, basically. You were stolen from, what have you had to do without, how did it make you feel? How can you be made whole? Who is responsible to do so?
All this obsession with morals being "meaningless" if they are not "objective" is just nonsense. It's asking the wrong question. Approximations serve us well all the time in our everyday lives. Everything doesn't have to be decreed in writing from some celestial Enforcer to be valid and useful. Also, good deeds can be done for reasons other than the terror of eternal perdition.
The thing is though that atheists have no objective standard to call anything 'bad', 'wrong', or 'evil'.
If morality is subjective, then they can't say Hitler was objectively evil.
Oh, FFS. Hitler's policies imprisoned, tortured, enslaved and murdered millions and was instrumental in plunging the whole world into a war with incalculable costs in lives and fortunes. In what universe isn't that harmful to individuals involved and to society, in massive and unambiguous ways? I don't have to consult the Bible or ask god what to think of it. I dunno -- maybe you do, but I sure don't.
It is intersubjective to varying degrees and the process of forming moral views sometimes isn't easy and perfect. So what? It still exists, and it still works.
And theists have the same challenges. They think it matters that it's written down in a book, supposedly from god, and yet at the same time they can't agree on what most of it means. Is it a sin to drink? At all? On Sundays? Not at all? Only if you are drunk (which itself it not a binary condition)? You can find Christians who hold all those views, and you can find Bible verses praising wine that gladdens the heart of man, too. My sect didn't use wine for communion, just Concord grape juice, just in case!
Look if you can't have a discussion that goes into the depths of epistemological thought w/o saying FFS, then I guess I'm done here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Hitler's policies imprisoned, tortured, enslaved and murdered millions and was instrumental in plunging the whole world into a war with incalculable costs in lives and fortunes. In what universe isn't that harmful to individuals involved and to society, in massive and unambiguous ways? I don't have to consult the Bible or ask god what to think of it. I dunno -- maybe you do, but I sure don't.
You still haven't grounded any of your morals in objectivity.
Look if you can't have a discussion w/o saying FFS that goes into the depths of epistemological thought, then I guess I'm done here. You still haven't grounded any of your morals in objectivity.
Take care, have a good night
Yeah I gave you an "out" there I guess.
The builder that built my house was a devout Mormon and one day I had him come over to meet with myself and the building inspector over some construction problems. The inspector pointed out problems with the flashing on the garage. The builder said it was within code. The inspector replied that "sure, but it is poor workmanship and looks like crap". The builder then bristled that if we're going to use that kind of language, the conversation is over. Which of course was nothing more than an attempt to get out of having to address the actual point. The inspector said a naughty word so nothing to see here! What a non-sequitur!
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.
