08 Mar 10
Originally posted by rwingettMorality is not fixed or absolute, but it is real nonetheless.It is a product of human convention. A socially derived process that has evolved, and continues to evolve, over time.
Morality is not fixed or absolute, but it is real nonetheless. It is a product of human convention. A socially derived process that has evolved, and continues to evolve, over time. What is 'moral' in one era is 'immoral' in the next. We see this within the bible itself. Slavery is endorsed within the bible, but no Christian would (I presume) endorse slavery today.
-----rwingett------------
I don't understand. I presume you would say that God does not really exist and that he is merely a product of human convention and religion a socially derived process.
How can you then turn round and say morals are "real nonethless"? Maybe God is "real nonetheless" .
What does "real" mean to you?
08 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat I am getting at, is if you put God back in the equation, how does it solve your dilemma?
Now I have a question for you.
Suppose God exists, or you believe he does.
Why do you pray to him? Why do you worship him?
Is it:
a) a selfish desire for self preservation?
b) merely following an illusory evolved feeling that something that big needs to be worshiped? (ie evolved respect for father figures)
c) some other reason that can be explained ...[text shortened]...
What I am getting at, is if you put God back in the equation, how does it solve your dilemma?
------------Whitey------------------------
It's not my dilemma as such , it's yours , I will explain. Presumably you would dismiss God as not being real and say that the idea of God is just illusory. You would say God is a product of human imagination and culture and probably serves some evolutionary function. Or something like that , yes?
So why stop there? Surely then moral values are nothing more then mere imaginings as well. And if that is true then to say something is "morally wrong" doesn't really mean anything "real" because no such absolute morality exists. Morality only exists in your mind and imagination , but it corresponds to no reality.
You may subscribe to this on an intellectual level , but in reality you still believe that certain things are wrong because they are wrong. And that's that.
08 Mar 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloHuh? That doesn't seem like a very obvious jump, so I would expect you to have some argument that connects the dots. Let's hear your argument: Premise 1 is ....?
[b]Surely , if we take the first step (and throw out God) then we logically need to take the second step and recognise that morality itself is not "real" but illusionary.
Huh? That doesn't seem like a very obvious jump, so I would expect you to have some argument that connects the dots. Let's hear your argument: Premise 1 is ....?
Also, what ...[text shortened]... realist. Are you forgetting that your own meta-ethical view is, in fact, subjectivist?[/b]
-------lemon--------------------
Oh no , let's hear YOUR argument.....
The onus is on you my friend. If you truly believe that we live in an ammoral universe then you must by implication believe that all human morals are merely by products of a meaningless evoltuonary process. They must be cultural illusions of some sort designed to keep society functioning. They serve some abstract evolutionary function that has very little to do with human love and compassion , and more to do with the survival of gene pools.
If I came round your house and beat you up , you could say I had broken societal norms , you might say that I had offended common human values shared by many. You could even say that I had contravened the law of the land.
But there is one thing that you COULD NOT say and stay true to your world view.......
You could NOT say that I was absolutely morally wrong to do what I did.
If you did I could just say that I was absolutely morally justified to do what I did and that your values were mistaken. How could you argue with me?
You could say that many would disagree , but that would prove nothing. It would just prove that my actions were deeply unpopular. Not wrong.
The problem is can you live with that truth?
08 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadIs this absolute? I suppose so.
I would say that morality at its root has to to with the recognition that other human being have a similar experience to ours, and it is a feeling of compassion or fairness that causes us to see it as wrong to intentionally cause others harm.
Is this absolute? I suppose so. But nevertheless it is evolved for reasons of the survival of the species (and se ...[text shortened]... ourselves. A judge doesn't care whether you were morally correct, he cares what the law says.
--------whitey-----------------------------
What on earth do you mean?
08 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou believe in God, and think God is the source of moral absolutes. You take this to be axiomatic. So, why can't the secular ethicist operate from his own axioms - for example, he takes it as a given that human life should not be taken unless some demonstrable greater good is served [self-defense, for example]?
If you think that then why not have a go at this one.
I killed someone today just for the fun of it.
Show me how my action was absolutely morally wrong (not just unpopular)
Try me.
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIs it the same set of rights in every case? My point was that different countries have different sets, not that they don't recognize them. For example, South Africa under apartheid obviously did not have the same set as it does today.
Who doesn't recognize Natural Rights?
09 Mar 10
We can argue why(God,Evolution)But man is a moral being. Who sets the standard? Obviously not all have the same morals but there has to be a standard. I have to agree that if there are no standards(absolutes) then anything can be justified Right? It would be interesting to see which laws/standards are universal.
Manny
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterTheres a little flaw there. Human love and compassion have exactly the same origins as morals and thus they have a lot to do with each other. This is the main flaw of your argument, ie you ignore the fact that you take certain things such as love, compassion, morals etc as absolutes regardless of whether God exists or not.
They serve some abstract evolutionary function that has very little to do with human love and compassion , and more to do with the survival of gene pools.
You could say that many would disagree , but that would prove nothing. It would just prove that my actions were deeply unpopular. Not wrong.
If you are correct then exactly the same applies to your world view. You may be unpopular with God, but you are not absolutely wrong. In your world view right and wrong are just arbitrary properties picked out by God and labeled. For some arbitrary reason you accept whatever this God tells you is right or wrong. But if I don't, you cannot claim you are right and I am wrong just because Gods vote counts for more.
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterI see you didn't even bother to address my earlier point of clarification concerning what exactly you mean when you say that morality is "real" or "not real".
Huh? That doesn't seem like a very obvious jump, so I would expect you to have some argument that connects the dots. Let's hear your argument: Premise 1 is ....?
-------lemon--------------------
Oh no , let's hear YOUR argument.....
The onus is on you my friend. If you truly believe that we live in an ammoral universe then you must by implica ...[text shortened]... y actions were deeply unpopular. Not wrong.
The problem is can you live with that truth?
Your claim is that the atheist is "logically" committed to the further view that "morality itself is not real". But that's obviously false, which is why I prompted you before to attempt to give any sort of argument for your claim. For instance, go ahead and attempt to demonstrate that a logical contradiction follows from the conjunction of (1) God does not exist and (2) morality is "real" (again, whatever you take "real" here to mean). Of course, you won't be able to do it without importing in some extra premise, such as that "real" morality can only derive from God. But, your importing in a premise of that sort cannot in any way be justified because it is just obviously question-begging.
But there is one thing that you COULD NOT say and stay true to your world view.......
You could NOT say that I was absolutely morally wrong to do what I did.
There is no reason why an atheist cannot hold to an account of "absolute" morals (I assume we are contrasting 'absolute' here with 'relative' or what?)
Are you seriously this ignorant of the field of secular ethics?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
09 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KConrau,
[b]I find that interesting. How do you justify something that most other people consider highly immoral?
Well, properly understood, I don't think I have said anything controversial. All I am recognising is that exigent circumstances may require some sort of servitude. I do not think the idea of penal servitude is much up for dispute either. Does anyo s of huge proportions the state would have the right to deprive people of certain freedoms.[/b]
Well, properly understood, I don't think I have said anything controversial.
What you said was:
I, however, do accept slavery to some extent. I accept penal slavery, that is, slavery as a form of punishment for criminals. I also accept slavery as a legitimate response to human exigencies, such as for example, when early settlers colonised new territories and suffered limited resources.
I think the 'also' allows a valid inference that the colonisation example was distinct from the penal one.
However you clarify:
To clarify, I was not actually advocating that colonists enslave natives; what I had in mind is something like the Australian settlement.
But this had a penal colony. So it isn't distinct at all.
In conclusion, I think it more likely that things will be properly understood when they are properly put.
The more substantive issue is that you have Humpty Dumptied the term 'slavery' though. The institution of slavery designates a different class of human. Although the penal system also does this, the resemblance to slavery is superficial, despite the option of hard labour.
10 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KI find your example circumstances to be a bit strange.
All I am recognising is that exigent circumstances may require some sort of servitude.
Yes. In fact, the Old Testament condemns these too. The betrayal and enslavement of Joseph, forced from his country, is an obvious example.
No, the example of Joseph was condemned solely because he was one of Gods people. God made no effort to free any other Egyptian slaves. The Bible allows slavery and God suggests it to the Jews.
Absolutely. To clarify, I was not actually advocating that colonists enslave natives; what I had in mind is something like the Australian settlement. Prisoners brought to Australia were assigned to some necessary task, building or cultivating land or making clothes (although this is not really described as slavery.)
It was supposedly a penal colony, though in reality it served other purposes - getting the prisoners and other 'undesirables' out of Britain, cheap labor for Australia etc.
What I don't understand is what you think the special need of colonialists is. Why can't South Africa round up all the illegal Zimbaweans and use them as slaves in a similar way? Why can the US do the same with their illegal immigrants?
Absolutely. To clarify, I was not actually advocating that colonists enslave natives; what I had in mind is something like the Australian settlement. Prisoners brought to Australia were assigned to some necessary task, building or cultivating land or making clothes (although this is not really described as slavery.)
[b]Do you reject as immoral the tribal instances listed in the old Testament?
Yes. In fact, the Old Testament condemns these too. The betrayal and enslavement of Joseph, forced from his country, is an obvious example.
Well, I don't think slavery should deprive people of natural rights. Slavery is not defined by the absence of rights but of liberties and it seems common sense that in a crisis of huge proportions the state would have the right to deprive people of certain freedoms.
And they do. Most countries have things like 'a state of emergency' during which many rights are curtailed. But this is not equivalent to slavery in which some peoples rights are removed for the benefit of others.
For example, although there are similarities, a communist country is not really a system of slavery.