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.
I suspect most probably would still try and live moral lives and wouldn't devolve into moral depravity. There are also those whom have no moral fiber in them and would just go around raping, murdering, stealing and causing general havok. Now, those kind folk are bad people, even when they have religion. That sort of mentality just says that they aren't doing good because it is the right thing to do, but because their invisible man will light them on fire if they don't. If you only act morally because of fear and would devolve into immoral hedonism when that fear goes away, then you are, inactuality, an evil person.
All of these terms in bold infer the existence of objective moral values.
Objective moral values can only exist if there is a Transcendent Law Giver. Either God and objective moral values exist or, God does not exist and all moral values are relative.
Secularists usually seem to think in terms of punishment when they deal with religious like him/her. Possibly the person is thinking in terms of love and reward rather than just punishment.
Granted I think there would be reasons to be good without God and think the person's response is maybe a tad knee-jerk. However to a degree I could see it being hard to avoid ethics becoming purely utilitarian and/or situational. For example people generally agree adultery is wrong, but from a non-theist perspective could you really make a blanket statement that "adultery is always wrong"? I mean what if his wife is in a persistent-vegetative-state and he's only keeping her alive for her relatives? Or what if the husband is a lowlife in prison and the affair helps the woman gain the courage to leave him? Or what if they have an "open marriage" or "swing"?
And not just adultery either. Take car theft. What if you steal a luxury car from a drug-dealer and use the money to fund drug-rehabilitation programs? Or what if you steal people's gas-guzzling cars and replace them with more environmentally friendly cars? Or what if you steal cars from Neo-Nazis with the hopes of hurting their organization? Or something maybe less lame than some of these.
These are all excellent points, and I wonder whether people's views vary depending on whether they're religious or not. I seem to recall seeing statistics saying that the adultery rate for theists isn't any lower than for atheists, and that it's pretty high (50% or so?) in the US for both groups. Obviously, a lot of theists don't fear God's wrath enough to remain faithful to their spouses. As an agnostic, I approach these things from a humanistic standpoint. My emotional make-up is such that it would bother me to be cheated on. My wife was cheated on before, and it was devastating for her. So our understanding has always been that we'd remain faithful to each other, and we have. However, I don't see anything wrong with the other scenarios you propose. If the wife is in a persistent vegetative state and isn't expected to recover, she won't be hurt emotionally, and life goes on for her husband. As for the lowlife, he already broke the marriage contract by doing whatever he did to land in prison, in my opinion. As for the swingers with the open marriage, it isn't really "cheating" if they both play by the rules they agreed to and genuinely don't have a problem with it; people have different emotional make-ups.
Your car examples are a bit trickier, surprisingly. When the DEA seizes and sells a luxury car from a drug dealer, that is in fact a legally sanctioned version of what you propose. Would I do it as an individual? Perhaps -- but only if I were absolutely, 100% sure that I wouldn't be caught -- and I can't think of a situation where that would be possible. If the drug dealer found out, I'd endanger myself and my family. If the police found out, I'd probably go to prison, and my family would also suffer. So whatever good the drug-program money would do would be balanced out by harm to my family and me -- and that would violate my sense of morality. Best to leave the drug dealer to the cops. Stealing people's gas-guzzling cars and replacing them with fuel-efficient cars would violate my sense or morality, in part because I know I don't have the absolute lowest carbon footprint I could (so I'd be a hypocrite), I don't know in what other ways these people might be helping the environment (maybe they have energy-efficient houses) or otherwise help people (e.g., an oncologist who likes to relax by driving a Ferrari), and I don't believe that would be my decision to make about other people's property. And no, I wouldn't steal cars from Neo-Nazis -- both because of the aforementioned danger to my family and myself, and because it would put me on a lower ethical plane than I could be; better to hurt them by educating people that hatred and bigotry are wrong.
The fact that you have presented your OP as a hypothetical doesn't get you off the hook with respect to a need for sensible reasoning and coherency. Presumably, you would be looking for a logical and coherent response to the hypothetical that you present. Logically, to posit (either hypothetically or not) a negative (such as 'What if it were proven that God does not exist?') is totally incoherent and nonsensical. Negatives cannot be proved.
Another example of a nonsense hypothetical: Suppose it became possible to create a square circle, what do you suppose a square circle would look like?
Speaking from the perspective of logic and scientific revelation, the reality of existential being cries out for a first cause. Simple cold hard logic.
I presented my view on moral absolutes in order to communicate my stance with respect to the topic at hand. It's not my purpose here to "hijack" your OP.
You've made some amazing statements. Perhaps we could move this to another thread?
I'll return to this when I have more time (gotta run now), but this appears to be a case of what seems hypothetically logical to me doesn't seem so to you -- which is fine, because that happens all the time on this forum. (That's another good thread topic!) But what about the way I restated it (i.e., that you hypothetically become an atheist)? That doesn't violate any rules of logic that I can see.
These are all excellent points, and I wonder whether people's views vary depending on whether they're religious or not. I seem to recall seeing statistics saying that the adultery rate for theists isn't any lower than for atheists, and that it's pretty high (50% or so?) in the US for both groups. Obviously, a lot of theists don't fear God's wrath enough to remain faithful to their spouses. As an agnostic, I approach these things from a humanistic standpoint. My emotional make-up is such that it would bother me to be cheated on. My wife was cheated on before, and it was devastating for her. So our understanding has always been that we'd remain faithful to each other, and we have. However, I don't see anything wrong with the other scenarios you propose. If the wife is in a persistent vegetative state and isn't expected to recover, she won't be hurt emotionally, and life goes on for her husband. As for the lowlife, he already broke the marriage contract by doing whatever he did to land in prison, in my opinion. As for the swingers with the open marriage, it isn't really "cheating" if they both play by the rules they agreed to and genuinely don't have a problem with it; people have different emotional make-ups.
Your car examples are a bit trickier, surprisingly. When the DEA seizes and sells a luxury car from a drug dealer, that is in fact a legally sanctioned version of what you propose. Would I do it as an individual? Perhaps -- but only if I were absolutely, 100% sure that I wouldn't be caught -- and I can't think of a situation where that would be possible. If the drug dealer found out, I'd endanger myself and my family. If the police found out, I'd probably go to prison, and my family would also suffer. So whatever good the drug-program money would do would be balanced out by harm to my family and me -- and that would violate my sense of morality. Best to leave the drug dealer to the cops. Stealing people's gas-guzzling cars and replacing them with fuel-efficient cars would violate my sense or morality, in part because I know I don't have the absolute lowest carbon footprint I could (so I'd be a hypocrite), I don't know in what other ways these people might be helping the environment (maybe they have energy-efficient houses) or otherwise help people (e.g., an oncologist who likes to relax by driving a Ferrari), and I don't believe that would be my decision to make about other people's property. And no, I wouldn't steal cars from Neo-Nazis -- both because of the aforementioned danger to my family and myself, and because it would put me on a lower ethical plane than I could be; better to hurt them by educating people that hatred and bigotry are wrong.
These are great answers. On the car one I was watching a TV show that had a better example. Your own car is missing for some reason and you have no access to public transportation, but there's an emergency and so you need to get somewhere fast. (In the TV show the person would die, but I think saving a life is of such gravity it might really countermand stealing in general) Would you "commandeer" a vehicle even if there was no chance of finding the owner to give it back to?
All of these terms in bold infer the existence of objective moral values.
Objective moral values can only exist if there is a Transcendent Law Giver. Either God and objective moral values exist or, God does not exist and all moral values are relative.
Logically, you can't have it both ways.
This is rubbish. Tigetmax24, you are completely ignorant on morality and ethics. Without god, you assume that things like rape and murder can't be objectively seen as right and wrong. This can be proven wrong through a simple hypothetical.
Let's say that you have stopped believing in god. Someone tells you to push a button. They'll give you a million dollars if you push it, but it would kill someone.
This was an example a bible teacher in high school gave us and the teacher(a devout christian) thought it would be wiser to push the button. Would you push the button? The problem with saying it would be better is that it assumes pushing the button has no negative affects and is beneficial. This is lunacy though and it completely degrades the preciousness of human life. Assume that the person that would be killed was your child or spouse or a special friend. Would you still press the button. Everyone has friends, dreams, family, loved ones and past experiences that make them who they are. Pressing the button gives a ripple effect. Killing the person affects many people. It affects everyone close to them. By your reasoning, no one can say it is to push the button if there is no god. If there is a god, one could say that the believer can't say it is wrong.
The point of this is that morality and objective right and wrong isn't based on a transcendent being. Humans have an innate sense of empathy and cooperation. With the exception of sociopaths, humans don't go around harming others because they know how they would feel if the same thing happened to them. Humans are also social animals which means cooperation is necessary for survival. Going around raping, murdering etc. takes away from the stability of society. Objective morals/ethics has nothing to do with god.
Going around raping, murdering etc. takes away from the stability of society. Objective morals/ethics has nothing to do with god.
Hm actually it kind of does. When things are defined by people there's always an element of subjectivity. Even if it's a collective subjectivity that doesn't make it non-subjective.
In your hypothetical (which is taken, with some alteration, from a Richard Matheson story as I recall) you assume the "preciousness of human life" because "what if it was your child" but that's at least partly emotional and not rational. Also it's taking a particular and making a general statement without much justification. Ted Bundy was someone's child and so was Saddam Hussein. That some human lives are precious to individuals does not give us objective proof human life is always precious.
Granted I think a working society would need a sense of "preciousness of human life", but this doesn't tell us that such a sense is objectively true. It just tells us what's useful for a society. That's not the same thing at all. Wang Mang tried to end slavery in first century China, but he failed because some slavery was useful and necessary in his society plus it was too difficult to eliminate it. So if "societal utility" equaled truth than "slavery is necessary" was true in Wang Mang, and by extension St. Paul's, time and I don't think many agnostics or atheists here would agree to that.
If this "preciousness of human life" is about societal utility and empathy than it can be abandoned when those two things are not in play. Imagine that you are told the button will kill an unmarried organ donor whose parents are dead and that the million dollars will not go to you, but to anti-malaria funds. What do you say then?
This is rubbish. Tigetmax24, you are completely ignorant on morality and ethics. Without god, you assume that things like rape and murder can't be objectively seen as right and wrong. This can be proven wrong through a simple hypothetical.
Let's say that you have stopped believing in god. Someone tells you to push a button. They'll give you a million dollars if you push it, but it would kill someone.
This was an example a bible teacher in high school gave us and the teacher(a devout christian) thought it would be wiser to push the button. Would you push the button? The problem with saying it would be better is that it assumes pushing the button has no negative affects and is beneficial. This is lunacy though and it completely degrades the preciousness of human life. Assume that the person that would be killed was your child or spouse or a special friend. Would you still press the button. Everyone has friends, dreams, family, loved ones and past experiences that make them who they are. Pressing the button gives a ripple effect. Killing the person affects many people. It affects everyone close to them. By your reasoning, no one can say it is to push the button if there is no god. If there is a god, one could say that the believer can't say it is wrong.
The point of this is that morality and objective right and wrong isn't based on a transcendent being. Humans have an innate sense of empathy and cooperation. With the exception of sociopaths, humans don't go around harming others because they know how they would feel if the same thing happened to them. Humans are also social animals which means cooperation is necessary for survival. Going around raping, murdering etc. takes away from the stability of society. Objective morals/ethics has nothing to do with god.
These are great answers. On the car one I was watching a TV show that had a better example. Your own car is missing for some reason and you have no access to public transportation, but there's an emergency and so you need to get somewhere fast. (In the TV show the person would die, but I think saving a life is of such gravity it might really countermand stealing in general) Would you "commandeer" a vehicle even if there was no chance of finding the owner to give it back to?
They certainly are. The moral maze is a maze and no -one denies that. It is because it's such a maze we have to talk in terms of an agreed concensus of right and wrong and a good bit of wiggle - room. Not in terms of moral absolutes.
It's frightfully easy to argue that this is so open to abuse and justification of wrongs in the cause of a supposed 'greater good' that it it is tempting to give it up and try to find the answers in a Holy Book or a supposed moral compass.
We know that trying to work from the concept of God - given ' moral absolutes has led in the past to some debatable actions. The conquest of mexico - right or wrong? It was brutal but put an end to human sacrifice and made the Mesoamericans christians. Is the pacificsm of certain Christians right or wrong in refusing to stop the Nazis? Even with a god - given moral code, we are no better off.
This is rubbish. Tigetmax24, you are completely ignorant on morality and ethics. Without god, you assume that things like rape and murder can't be objectively seen as right and wrong. This can be proven wrong through a simple hypothetical.
It's very amazing to observe how certain members of the forum are allowed to routinely go about "hijacking" threads and tossing out the "ad hom."
So now what? If I respond, I get deleted for being "off topic" and "hijacking" a thread. Great deal you and your so called (quote) "moderator" (unquote) buddies isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier
Let's say that you have stopped believing in god. Someone tells you to push a button. They'll give you a million dollars if you push it, but it would kill someone.
This was an example a bible teacher in high school gave us and the teacher(a devout christian) thought it would be wiser to push the button. Would you push the button? The problem with saying it would be better is that it assumes pushing the button has no negative affects and is beneficial. This is lunacy though and it completely degrades the preciousness of human life. Assume that the person that would be killed was your child or spouse or a special friend. Would you still press the button. Everyone has friends, dreams, family, loved ones and past experiences that make them who they are. Pressing the button gives a ripple effect. Killing the person affects many people. It affects everyone close to them. By your reasoning, no one can say it is to push the button if there is no god. If there is a god, one could say that the believer can't say it is wrong.
A moral relativist would still be capable of assigning priorities to the existence of certain people or perhaps even all people. Just because one happens to view morality as a simple matter or preference, they may, as an individual preference, determine that it is preferable not to kill others - even if the reward is a million dollars.
This appears to be your apparent error in logic and reasoning here. You are positing a false dilemma and attempting (rather absurdly) to insinuate that I am positing the same. I've never stated nor ever inferred that any person who denies the existence of moral absolutes must automatically be inclined to utter moral turpitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier
The point of this is that morality and objective right and wrong isn't based on a transcendent being. Humans have an innate sense of empathy and cooperation.
Nonsense. Now, if you were to posit that relative morality is not based on the existence of a Transcendent Being, I would be in total agreement.
You are apparently confused over the difference between the term 'relative' and the term 'objective.'
Also, how does anyone look around at the existential reality of the appalling inhumanity in our world today and conclude that humans have some innate sense of empathy and cooperation? There are apparently millions of such people that have demonstrated the ability and determination to hit the "override" button.
...but, if it's all simply a matter of personal preference, who are we to judge?
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier
With the exception of sociopaths, humans don't go around harming others because they know how they would feel if the same thing happened to them.
...and what would make your view of morality superior to that of a "sociopath?"
...and who will make the distinction between who qualifies as human and who qualifies as a "sociopath?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier
Humans are also social animals which means cooperation is necessary for survival. Going around raping, murdering etc. takes away from the stability of society.
What planet do you live on? If humans don't go around raping and murdering, why do we see such things reported 24/7 every week of the year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier
Objective morals/ethics has nothing to do with god.
Yes, I've gathered that this is your unreasonable, illogical and totally unsupportable opinion.
P.S. I would advise that you consult rifleman about all this. He appears to have a good grasp on the objectivity vs. relativity issue.
Last edited by tigetmax24; 06-26-2010 at 06:21 AM..
Reason: PS
Thomas R., you make some good points. I should have mentioned in my p'push the button' scenario that you wouldn't know who were killing. Most people aren't sociopaths like Saddam or Ted Bundy so it would probably be a normal person with friends, family etc. It seems that you're coming from a utilitarian position, although I favor the secular humanist philosophy, which places value on every individual. To answer your question, I wouldn't kill the person. Most people don't consciously do good things because of societal stability, although if the majority of people were to regress into moral relativity and hedonism, then society would collapse. Humans are social animals so society is necessary for survival, mind you, consciously, most people people are good out of empathy and wanting to harm others. What tigetmax24 seems to ignore is that moral relativism allows detrimental behavior, but behaviors like rape or murder would also lead to chaos if everyone who had the inkling too rape and murder. This is also why we have laws to curb these behaviors. Mind you many people also would never have a desire to rape and murder. To get back on the thread topic, this is why most believers wouldn't drastically alter their morality if they were to lose their belief.
Last edited by agnostic soldier; 06-26-2010 at 11:29 AM..
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.
