Originally posted by rwingett

You don't need an absolute standard to know that murder is wrong.
That "kinda" sounds like an absolute.

If you want to talk about standards that are accepted one day and eschewed the next, then look at the bible. Slavery is a common and accepted practice in the bible, but now is condemned.
Help me out. Where does the Bible condemn slavery? Slavery has always been, exists today, and will continue until the end of human history.

The morality of the ancient Egyptians is very different from today's in many respects. But it is similar in many others.
You can say that again.

Originally posted by bbarr
No. What gave you that idea?

My ignorance of ethics perhaps; with no absolute or metaphysical reference, by what criteria do you distinguish the better between the “usefulness” of utilitarianism and the “pleasure” of hedonism? Surely, on the market of ethical theories, the end goal of cannabis is the same as cannibalism – it is the preference of the individual that dictates the choice.

Originally posted by Halitose
My ignorance of ethics perhaps; with no absolute or metaphysical reference, by what criteria do you distinguish the better between the “usefulness” of utilitarianism and the “pleasure” of hedonism? Surely, on the market of ethical theories, the end goal of cannabis is the same as cannibalism – it is the preference of the individual that dictates the choice.

What is this "absolute or metaphysical reference" you're talking about? For the theist, the criterion for rightness is God's will (or something thereabouts; it differs slightly for Natural Law theorists), for the Utilitarian it is either preference satisfaction or considerations of pleasure or happiness (where the utility calculus applies either to particular acts or to rules), for the Kantian it is the Categorical Imperative, for the virtue theorist, it is what the virtuous person would do in the circumstances under consideration, for the social contract theorist it is what we would, hypothetically, agree to from some specified initial bargaining position. These theories attempt to specify what the nature of rightness and wrongness is, just like theistic ethical theories do. These are presented, critiqued and refined in light of the work of ethical theorists, just like Divine Command Theory and Natural Law theories have been refined by theologians with an ethical bent. You want to argue that secular ethical theories are generally relativistic or hedonistic or whatever (though this is simply an error), and you support this claim be bringing up the obvious fact that secular ethical theories are theories that we, humans, come up with. I have no idea why you think this argument will work, given that it is so terrible. I'd love you to try and tell the scientists here that the fact that humans come up with scientific theories entails that those scientific theories don't explain anything objective, or that the theories themselves are necessarily tainted by human interest.

Originally posted by whodey
I thought it only fair to ask in light of only christianity and Islam being picked upon. Well, what of it? I think the most vile aspects of atheism is the fact that there is no purpose to life. What is worse, in fact, is that we will die and never again exist. Not only do we serve no purpose and are on the verge of nonexistence, but we are merely animals ...[text shortened]... defend our postitions about something that we know without a shadow of a doubt is 100% nonsense.

We are the morons, not God.

Yes, it would be so much better if a moronic God did exist.

At any rate, absolutely nothing in your post actually follows from atheism. So "blah blah blah" to you, too.

Originally posted by Halitose
My ignorance of ethics perhaps; with no absolute or metaphysical reference, by what criteria do you distinguish the better between the “usefulness” of utilitarianism and the “pleasure” of hedonism? Surely, on the market of ethical theories, the end goal of cannabis is the same as cannibalism – it is the preference of the individual that dictates the choice.

Interestingly enough many people would not consider either cannabis or cannibalism on thier own to be ethicaly wrong.

In the discussion on purpose in life, I would be far more likely to believe in the existance of God if it I could understand how that would provide some purpose to my life. I do not believe that following the dictactes of another being is neccessarily purpose in and of itself. Instead theism tends to claim a higher purpose that is unknowable. Very simmilar to thier origins argument.

Originally posted by bbarr

You want to argue that secular ethical theories are generally relativistic or hedonistic or whatever (though this is simply an error), and you support this claim be bringing up the obvious fact that secular ethical theories are theories that we, humans, come up with.
Their denial of absolutes demand a transitory nature to any 'law' which they (temporarily) accept, thus the relativism. Whether they are based on self-pleasure or on the pleasure of others (pleasure is the base of all of them, regardless of other orientation) is inconsequential. By not referring to absolutes, the secularist can approximate morality with his mimicry of absolutes, but will inevitably wander away.

that the theories themselves are necessarily tainted by human interest.
This is true for any human endeavor which attempts to 'go it alone.'

Originally posted by bbarr
What is this "absolute or metaphysical reference" you're talking about? For the theist, the criterion for rightness is God's will (or something thereabouts; it differs slightly for Natural Law theorists), for the Utilitarian it is either preference satisfaction or considerations of pleasure or happiness (where the utility calculus applies either to particular ...[text shortened]... hing objective, or that the theories themselves are necessarily tainted by human interest.

What is this "absolute or metaphysical reference" you're talking about?

This was clumsily stated by me. Perhaps a better wording of the question is: "Can you offer substantive ontological foundation for an objective morality within an atheistic framework which would allow for moral responsibility, human rights, human dignity?"

You correctly noted that I was ineptly addressing this problem from an epistemological level, but should rather have taken it from the ontological. I agree that atheists may be aware of the content of morality, but dispute that their worldview furnishes them with the basis for explaining moral truths and why we are able to know them.

One need not appeal to God to know whether or not cruelty, rape, genocide, or torturing children is wrong, but the question is how such moral knowledge is possible. On what naturalistic or materialistic basis can human dignity or human rights be affirmed? What is it within the atheist's worldview that furnishes him/her with such a metaphysic of personhood as being of intrinsic value or worth?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]What is this "absolute or metaphysical reference" you're talking about?

This was clumsily stated by me. Perhaps a better wording of the question is: "Can you offer substantive ontological foundation for an objective morality within an atheistic framework which would allow for moral responsibility, human rights, human dignity?"

You correctly not ...[text shortened]... rnishes him/her with such a metaphysic of personhood as being of intrinsic value or worth?[/b]

I would have thought that was fairly obvious; what does not benefit the majority of the group is socially accepted over time as an improper way to act. These values are passed though the society from generation to generation. The memebrs of the society do their best to act in such a way as is beneficial to their advance, since if the general state of well-being, health, peace, productiveness etc. is enhanced, the society is more successful. Acting in such a way as is counter-productive is detrimental to that success.

And I want to stress that atheism and my world view do not depend on each other; I could hold this view were I a Christian or Agnostic as well.

Originally posted by Starrman
And I want to stress that atheism and my world view do not depend on each other; I could hold this view were I a Christian or Agnostic as well.

Acting in such a way as is counter-productive is detrimental to that success.
Or, visionary.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Acting in such a way as is counter-productive is detrimental to that success.
Or, visionary.[/b]

Explanation?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You want to argue that secular ethical theories are generally relativistic or hedonistic or whatever (though this is simply an error), and you support this claim be bringing up the obvious fact that secular ethical theories are theories that we, humans, come up with.
Their denial of absolutes demand a transitory nature to any 'law' which they (tem ...[text shortened]... by human interest.[/b]
This is true for any human endeavor which attempts to 'go it alone.'[/b]

Each theory above does postulate an 'absolute', if what you mean by 'absolute' is 'ultimate criteria for moral rightness and wrongness'. On only a handful of secular ethical theories is pleasure taken to be the sole criteria for moral rightness. Pleasure is the basis for some hedonistic versions of utilitarianism and some versions of ethical egoism. It is not the basis for the others, as I pointed out above (Kant, for instance, thought pleasure was irrelevant to determinations of moral rightness). I would expect any decently educated theist to be aware of the basics of the dominant secular ethical theory since the enlightenment, but apparently that is expecting too much. You seem to think that all secular ethical theories are versions of egoism or hedonism, and when you make these claims you sound like an idiot. I guess you prefer to play the "let's make up things about ethics" game then to actually get educated regarding a subject of which you are worse than ignorant.

Originally posted by Starrman
I would have thought that was fairly obvious; what does not benefit the majority of the group is socially accepted over time as an improper way to act. These values are passed though the society from generation to generation. The memebrs of the society do their best to act in such a way as is beneficial to their advance, since if the general state of well ...[text shortened]... view do not depend on each other; I could hold this view were I a Christian or Agnostic as well.

These are epistemologically subjective moral principles that may/may not presuppose human value and worth. My question is for an objective ontological basis to justify this stance.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]What is this "absolute or metaphysical reference" you're talking about?

This was clumsily stated by me. Perhaps a better wording of the question is: "Can you offer substantive ontological foundation for an objective morality within an atheistic framework which would allow for moral responsibility, human rights, human dignity?"

You correctly not ...[text shortened]... rnishes him/her with such a metaphysic of personhood as being of intrinsic value or worth?[/b]

I have no idea what you're asking. Atheists, like all people, come to believe things about morality by reasoning about morality, learning from their experiences, and so on. Atheists, like all people, construct explanations for their experiences, including their sentiments. Some of these theories aim at describing and expaining morality. The theist claims that morality is ultimately a function of God's will (or whatever), the atheist claims that morality is ultimately a function of what rational agents would agree to were they to draw up a contract for their interactions, or that it is a funtion of maximizing utility, or in respecting the autonomy of others, or in cultivating certain character traits that reliably conduce to human flourishing, or...

These ethical theories all posit an ultimate, ontological ground for morality. So, what's your problem?

Originally posted by David C
Unlike, say, those altruistic Christians who profess a love for Christ because...what, again? Oh, yes...everlasting life. No contradiction there.

Its funny, christianity and islam both claim everlasting life after death, an oxymoron in itself but even if true, the whole UNIVERSE has a finite lifetime so I would have to assume christians think they won't even be in this universe and will live to see its demise.
Oh Peggy, watch, its shrinking again, there it goes, down the drain again. Whoops, it popping back out, oh look, ISN"T IT CUTE? little baby universe coming out of gods tummy again.

Originally posted by bbarr
Each theory above does postulate an 'absolute', if what you mean by 'absolute' is 'ultimate criteria for moral rightness and wrongness'. On only a handful of secular ethical theories is pleasure taken to be the sole criteria for moral rightness. Pleasure is the basis for some hedonistic versions of utilitarianism and some versions of ethical egoism. It is n ...[text shortened]... then to actually get educated regarding a subject of which you are worse than ignorant.

Didn't Kant assert in his Critique of Practical Reason that morality requires a belief in the existence of God, freedom, and immortality, because without this said existence there can be no morality?