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.
There is a prominent Christian apologist who claims that atheists must steal from God to make moral claims because there can be no morality without an objective standard such as God's decrees. All atheistic moral claims, he says, are merely personal opinions. If an atheist claims it's immoral to poison babies, I can disagree and the atheist can point to nothing to establish that his position is the moral one.
His argument, of course, presupposes the existence of the Christian God. I also think it's flawed.
Morality does, I believe, require some objective standard. But that standard can be human consensus. If I claim poisoning babies is not immoral, those who disagree can point to the consensus of humanity throughout the ages, including laws adopted by virtually every culture. "Poisoning babies is immoral" is not mere personal opinion.
The apologist would be correct in saying that morality based on human consensus is subject to change, whereas morality based on a deity's decrees is not. But he isn't correct to say there can be no morality at all without a deity's decrees. He attempts to overcome this obvious flaw by defining morality in such a way that the standard must be both objective and not subject to change.
Some issues, including many of the hot-button issues of our time, have more than one moral dimension and make it difficult to achieve any clear consensus. If I say abortion is immoral because it's the unnecessary killing of an innocebt life, that's a legitimate position but there is no clear consensus. If someone else says it's moral because the mother's autonomy and interests must take precedence, that's another legitimate position where there is no clear consensus. Neither is mere opinion but neither can claim the consensus necessary for a moral claim to have an objective basis.
Actually, good post and pretty objective as things around here go.
I believe the Bible says that [deleted sin] is immoral. Right and wrong do not depend on what the majority believes. For Christians, we have one source and that is the Bible.
Ahem, your "God" has [deleted sin] more people than anyone in history. The only difference is that he took the mothers along with them.
Utilitarianism is the most rational ethical system ever devised, and it is entirely secular, having been developed primarily by the British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Choose the action that leads to the greatest increase in aggregate human flourishing/well-being. The challenge is often in determining which action that may actually be. Sam Harris' book, 'The Moral Landscape', though flawed, was a good preliminary effort at trying to advance the notion of using neuroscience to clarify utilitarian decision-making. I remember writing a passionately critical review of the book that was lost to some Facebook profile overhaul or another, but all these years later, I'm mostly just impressed that he laid the groundwork for others to build upon
Thread closed after you decided to discuss abortion, even though you were just reminded yesterday, in this thread, that abortion is absolutely never allowed in this forum.
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.
