Can Aethiest be Moral? (Congress, highway, children, considered)

[LBear]

Originally Posted by saganista

Well then, that wouldn't be the only problem. One of the other ones would be the rigidity of your approach to the issue. There would also be your habit of dismissing people other than yourself and disparaging ideas other than your own.

Proper debates are handled in such a manner that allows a question and answer format, without "drive-by" statements and going off on a tangent. People posting insults and ranting is not conducive to a proper and intelligent debate.

Originally Posted by saganista

Considering that the topic is whether atheists can be moral,

Yes, they can be moral. My question goes deeper than that.

Originally Posted by saganista

No, there isn't, and that answer has been provided in plain terms before. There is no source from which any absolute morality could arise. This would be the case even if an all-knowing, all-powerful deity did exist.

So you believe there is no absolute morality. If the United States changed its laws and stated that murder and rape is no longer illegal. You could not argue that if someone wanted to murder or rape your loved ones, they would be breaking the law of the U.S., as the laws changed. You could also not argue that it was "immoral" to murder and rape your loved ones, as you just admitted that there is no "absolute morality".

Originally Posted by saganista

Consider that in the future, it may be widely known that plants experience sensations of pain and emotional loss that are comparable to our own, even though via different means. It may be held at that time that deliberate damage to plant life is an act that could be carried out only by barbarians.

Person C today believes that it is not immoral to mow his lawn every Saturday in the Summer.

Is this person immoral?

I believe there is absolute morality and it is part of our natural rights as human beings. Your questions carries with it a supposition that plant life is equal to human life. Plant life is not equal to human life, just as animal life is not equal to human life.

Animals are killed for food and nourishment, just as plant life is harvested for food and nourishment. Neither are immoral things to do.

Getting back to your question:

"Person C today believes that it is not immoral to mow his lawn every Saturday in the Summer.
Is this person immoral?"

As mentioned previously, the question is based on false premises. I believe in absolute morality that is unchanging and part of that entails that plant life is not equivalent to human life. It is here for our enjoyment and nourishment. Therefore, it can never be "immoral" to mow a lawn or eat a carrot, or chew on lettuce. Person C could never be immoral for mowing his or her lawn.

[LBear]

Originally Posted by saganista

ANSWER:
...is still no, there isn't. And even if it were universally the case in all cultures and all times that these acts were, are, and will be held to be immoral, it would not imply an absolute standard. It would only imply a lot of agreement...

So then, by your position, if U.S. laws changed and made murder and rape legal. You could not plead that it was "immoral" to murder and rape your family. Being that there is no absolute morality or absolute standard of morality. You could not argue that it was "immoral" and invoke an absolute morality "clause".

Is this your position?

[saganista]

Originally Posted by LBear

Proper debates are handled in such a manner that allows a question and answer format, without "drive-by" statements and going off on a tangent. People posting insults and ranting is not conducive to a proper and intelligent debate.

I would suggest that you have ably demonstrated a lack of qualification to be arbiter of what constitutes a proper debate.

Originally Posted by LBear

Yes, they can be moral. My question goes deeper than that.

You flatter yourself. But I shall have to deal with this and subsequent matters later, as I have an 11:00 meeting and am not in the proper building as of yet...

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by saganista

I think that's pretty close, but I would say that the salient question is over what, if any, role must necessarily be assigned to God (or any deity) in the formation and development of the concepts that define morality?

If there are none, then the case for atheistic morality is proven, so long as morality itself is conceded to exist. In this light, the burden of proof is upon the theist. He must identify, describe, and document some aspect within the process of proper moral reasoning that of necessity must derive from within the supernatural realm.

Personally, I don't see this happening...

First of all, it has to be acknowledged that one of three cases must prevails:


1. Morality is a homocentric construct. It exists for the sole function of furthering the survival if this species, and can be looked at only in the context of the well-being of human beings. OR

2. Morality is accord with the universal laws of physics, and, like gravity, is applicable irrespective of the presence or men, intellect, consciousness, or even life in the unvierse. OR

3. Man, using intellect, has constructed a rationalized bypass, creating a concept of morality to override unpleasant but naturally prevailing condition. Similar to controlling fire to override cold.

Those who believe God created man and/or the universe may accept any of the three cases, and live comfortably with it. as long as they can attribute it unchallenged to God's will and thus enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Incurious dismissal of any further inspection is de rigeur, so there is no point talking about it.

[twinArmageddons]

Originally Posted by LBear

So then, by your position, if U.S. laws changed and made murder and rape legal. You could not plead that it was "immoral" to murder and rape your family. Being that there is no absolute morality or absolute standard of morality. You could not argue that it was "immoral" and invoke an absolute morality "clause".

Is this your position?

One COULD plead that it is immoral by their personal standards. Everyone has different moral standards, so it's near impossible to have everyone agree on one set of morals. However, there are a set that every civilized culture known to man has had, and that's the basic "Do not kill" and "Do not steal".

[saganista]

Originally Posted by LBear

So you believe there is no absolute morality. If the United States changed its laws and stated that murder and rape is no longer illegal. You could not argue that if someone wanted to murder or rape your loved ones, they would be breaking the law of the U.S., as the laws changed.

You're confusing illegal and immoral here. Is that a deliberate distraction, or do you really not understand the difference between the two?

Originally Posted by LBear

You could also not argue that it was "immoral" to murder and rape your loved ones, as you just admitted that there is no "absolute morality".

The absence of an absolute morality hardly rules out the existence of other kinds. I am perfectly free to speak out against murderers and rapists on the basis of a personal morality and to use powers of suasion to convince others of the wisdom and propriety of my views.

Originally Posted by LBear

I believe there is absolute morality and it is part of our natural rights as human beings.

We have a natural right to an absolute morality? Funny...I don't see that one mentioned often.

Originally Posted by LBear

Your questions carries with it a supposition that plant life is equal to human life. Plant life is not equal to human life, just as animal life is not equal to human life. Animals are killed for food and nourishment, just as plant life is harvested for food and nourishment. Neither are immoral things to do.

Hmmm. It seems here that your supposed absolute morals are simply your personal (and entirely relative) morals with the word "absolute" stuck in front of them.

Originally Posted by LBear

Getting back to your question:

"Person C today believes that it is not immoral to mow his lawn every Saturday in the Summer. Is this person immoral?"

As mentioned previously, the question is based on false premises.

No, it isn't. You simply invent a personal morality that will invalidate the premises, then call that morality absolute, and then claim thet the premises are magically invalidated. That's not debate...it isn't even logic.

Originally Posted by LBear

I believe in absolute morality that is unchanging and part of that entails that plant life is not equivalent to human life.

Validation via repetition? That doesn't work either.

Originally Posted by LBear

It is here for our enjoyment and nourishment. Therefore, it can never be "immoral" to mow a lawn or eat a carrot, or chew on lettuce. Person C could never be immoral for mowing his or her lawn.

I can see how you might say that. I can't however see any way, shape, or form in which to conclude that you have said it only because any system of absolute morality exists and obtains. It begins, proceeds, and ends with mere recitation of your personal opinion.

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by crystalblue

On some of the religious topics, I often see people make the assumption that atheist or agnostics (or anyone not christian) cant possibly be moral.

Thoughts?

We can be, of course.

But most of the time we just don't want to be.

[djacques]

Originally Posted by LBear

Ok, so you are affirming that there is NO absolute morality.

Yup.

You have just contradicted yourself. You cannot state that they are "immoral", being that you admitted there is no absolute morality. Therefore, they cannot be judged or told that they have done an "immoral" thing.

Nope.

It is you OPINION that "creating suffering is a moral wrong" but it cannot be held as a fact because there is no absolute morality. It cannot be proven to be "immoral" because morality is relative.

I didn't say it could be proven, the way things are proven in mathematics. That doesn't nullify my less-than-absolute morality.

We are jumping ahead here. Let's stick to building the basic groundwork of this debate. We can revisit this later on.

We aren't jumping ahead, this is exactly the point. I admit my morality isn't absolute, and that someone can say "bugger your morality, it's not mine." You claim your morality is absolute, yet I can still say "bugger your morality, it's not mine." The practical advantage of claiming to possess an absolute morality is therefore unclear.

By your stance and position, you have dismissed your "right" to life. In essence, if you apply the premise that there is "no absolute morality", you cannot impose your moral standards on anyone if they were attempting to torture and kill you, your family or your loved ones.

Try it and see whether I can "impose them" or not.

If the United States changed its laws and stated that murder and rape is no longer illegal. You could not argue that if someone wanted to murder or rape your loved ones, they would be breaking the law of the U.S., as the laws changed. You could also not argue that it was "immoral" to murder and rape your loved ones, as you just admitted that there is no "absolute morality".

Try and understand this; it's not complicated. Either someone who wants to murder and rape intuitively accepts that hurting others is wrong or he doesn't. If he does, I can appeal to his moral sense even based on my supposedly defective, non-absolute morality. If he doesn't, your citing a source of absolute morality is going to do no more than provide him with one extra guffaw before the knife comes down.

I ask again, is there an absolute morality that would include the absolute moral law that murder and rape is wrong & immoral in all circumstances?

I answer again, based on what I take as your definition of "absolute morality" there is not, and in fact the concept itself is patently absurd.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by jtur88

First of all, it has to be acknowledged that one of three cases must prevails:
1. Morality is a homocentric construct. It exists for the sole function of furthering the survival if this species, and can be looked at only in the context of the well-being of human beings. OR
2. Morality is accord with the universal laws of physics, and, like gravity, is applicable irrespective of the presence or men, intellect, consciousness, or even life in the unvierse. OR
3. Man, using intellect, has constructed a rationalized bypass, creating a concept of morality to override unpleasant but naturally prevailing condition. Similar to controlling fire to override cold.
Those who believe God created man and/or the universe may accept any of the three cases, and live comfortably with it. as long as they can attribute it unchallenged to God's will and thus enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Incurious dismissal of any further inspection is de rigeur, so there is no point talking about it.

If it is true that there is no point in talking about morality with a religious person, then I think it must be true that there is no room within religion for ethics. Which would seem odd given the amount of time and effort that religious apologists have invested in it.

In any case, I'm not sure that #1 and #3 above are actually distinct from each other, and I'm reluctant to assume per #2 that any morality can exist in the absence of life in the universe. What exactly is the morality of the surface of the moon? I would think that at least consciousness, and actually awareness of self and of others, would have to exist before any sense or effect of morality could come into being. If you wanted three conditions, I might see them (today, at least) as...

1. Morality is entirely a human construct. We just make this stuff up as we go along based on what seems to have worked well for us in the past. No need for 100% agreement on all of it, we can get by seeing eye to eye on a large part, and then either agree to disagree over the rest of it, or fight each other over it all the time.

2. Morality is a set of non-negotiable commands arising somewhere outside the human system that is simply handed to us. We don't play any role at all, save that of rote compliance and obedience. We simply kill anybody who doesn't obey or comply because it says in there somewhere that that's what we're supposed to do.

3. Morality is a set of vague but essential truths that are of no known origin but which can in the same form be glimpsed, appreciated, and expanded upon by all life as its consciousness and experience within the universe expand. Life in one time and place would spin its own web, different from the web of all others, but each would be built on the same ultimate foundations.

Personally, I think #2 can be ruled out on the basis of its being ridiculous, and #3 I think becomes trivial, in that once we have these general concepts in hand via any means, it just reverts back to being #1. So, it's all #1 all the time. There's no absolute anything anywhere, and even if there were, it would be so incidental as to not merit serious or lengthy consideration in any case...

[LBear]

saganista & djacques -

QUESTION:
So, then the both of you admit to being legal positivists, correct?

Moral law has two viewpoints. One is the NATURAL LAW VIEW and the other is POSITIVE LAW VIEW. Being that you both deny absolute morality, you therefore hold to the POSITIVE LAW view.