Originally posted by HalitoseIn some ways its similar though not exactly so, to the difference between allowing someone to die when you could easily stop it or killing someone. The action of killing a single person to avoid a tragedy seems morally different from taking an action that avoids a tragedy but results in a death.
True. I'd agree that pushing someone into an oncoming train and flipping a switch which would result in the same are equal in their end result. The difference is that with the first, the action of killing is done directly, while in the second it is done by mechanical proxy.
So, on the objective level, the actions are homologous, while on the subjective and experiential level, they differ drastically.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'd like to think the universe is naturally moral...
Yes, built in just like gravity. How handy of the universe to provide it, despite it's tendency to break down.
I'd like to think the universe is naturally moral...
For an atheist, I think this position cannot logically be sustained -- starting off with an amoral, non-personal first cause (big bang), then followed through by amoral natural processes causing life (abiogenesis & evolution) the atheist has no epistemological grounds given their theory of origins to assert any form of objective good and evil, right and wrong.
Twhitehead's position is case in point.
Originally posted by HalitoseYou assume that all atheists believe in the Big Bang, aren't you?
[b]I'd like to think the universe is naturally moral...
For an atheist, I think this position cannot logically be sustained -- starting off with an amoral, non-personal first cause (big bang), then followed through by amoral natural processes causing life (abiogenesis & evolution) the atheist has no epistemological grounds given ...[text shortened]... form of objective good and evil, right and wrong.
Twhitehead's position is case in point.[/b]
Why is it impossible for me to be moral just because I'm not sure how life began? Ridiculous!
Originally posted by HalitosePersonally, I think you make your own morals. Mind you, your parents and your society also mould your preferences.
[b]I'd like to think the universe is naturally moral...
For an atheist, I think this position cannot logically be sustained -- starting off with an amoral, non-personal first cause (big bang), then followed through by amoral natural processes causing life (abiogenesis & evolution) the atheist has no epistemological grounds given ...[text shortened]... form of objective good and evil, right and wrong.
Twhitehead's position is case in point.[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think that we can therefore call it objective.
I think that most peoples moral 'sense' translates into:
Do what benefits my group if its not too much at the expense of me as an individual.
This applies to sub-groups of larger groups too.
I think that we can therefore call it objective. I also think that most peoples differences of opinion of what is or is not morally correct is based on different w ...[text shortened]... ct' implies "we are both selfish but I am taking a less morally wrong path than you"
No, I disagree. Objective morality requires certain actions to be morally right or wrong irrespective of who does it and why it is done. Some "groups" consider it "beneficial" to slaughter their unborn children, while others consider it morally abominable and detrimental to their society. For morals to be objective, they have to ride above what would subjectively be considered "beneficial"... the circularity of the definition aside.
Saving someone from a fire is considered good but not doing so would normally not be labeled "morally wrong".
This is not necessarily so. See the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent: http://www.answers.com/denying%20the%20antecedent
Most importantly remember that selfish behavior is often considered acceptable or 'allowed' even when it is agreed that it is not the best moral option or even downright morally wrong. Hence terms like 'the moral high ground' instead of 'morally correct' implies "we are both selfish but I am taking a less morally wrong path than you"
For any moral comparison to be made, an absolute frame of reference has to be assumed.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou assume that all atheists believe in the Big Bang, aren't you?
You assume that all atheists believe in the Big Bang, aren't you?
Why is it impossible for me to be moral just because I'm not sure how life began? Ridiculous!
That would be true for most atheists on this forum. However, belief in the Big Bang is not a necessary tenet for a position of atheism, nor is it limited to it.
Why is it impossible for me to be moral just because I'm not sure how life began? Ridiculous!
I'm not saying you can't be moral (nor any atheist for that matter); to the contrary I'm sure there are moral atheists. What I'm saying is that the formulation of an objective moral distinction cannot be sustained by the commonly held tenets of the atheistic system.
Originally posted by HalitoseI think the Big Bang is a likely scenario, but is that the same as saying I believe it? Does observing that something is more likely than not equal belief in that something?
[b]You assume that all atheists believe in the Big Bang, aren't you?
That would be true for most atheists on this forum. However, belief in the Big Bang is not a necessary tenet for a position of atheism, nor is it limited to it.
Why is it impossible for me to be moral just because I'm not sure how life began? Ridiculous!
I'm not saying ...[text shortened]... moral distinction cannot be sustained by the commonly held tenets of the atheistic system.[/b]
As an atheist, I say that all moral distinctions are subjective. There can be no such thing as objective morality. But morality is in no danger of being extinguished because of it.
Originally posted by rwingettThere is no particular reason why an atheist must also believe that all moral distinctions are subjective.
I think the Big Bang is a likely scenario, but is that the same as saying I believe it? Does observing that something is more likely than not equal belief in that something?
As an atheist, I say that all moral distinctions are subjective. There can be no such thing as objective morality. But morality is in no danger of being extinguished because of it.
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseThat's not an example of "intra-cultural cannibalism", is it? Besides what people do during wars is hardly indicative of what their basic cultural beliefs are.
It depends what you mean by "culture". The warring tribes of Irian Jaya, Papua New Guinea who used to engage in the ritualistic cannibalism of their fallen foes could serve as an example.