Originally posted by no1marauderI like it better when they put missionaries in a big pot and eat them. Hard to make a case for that as being immoral.
That'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.
Originally posted by rwingettI 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?
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.
I guess there would be nuances of belief. This would not be comparible to an unfounded belief in Muffy, for example.
It would probably have been better worded had I said that atheists subscribe to the Big Bang.
As an atheist, I say that all moral distinctions are subjective.
I believe 😉 we are agreement then.
But morality is in no danger of being extinguished because of it.
How so?
Originally posted by no1marauderReason, nature? Nature doesn't communicate any moral values. Reason can say that certain actions will have deleterious consequences against our persons, but I don't see how reason can make any formal, objective moral standards. Even if humanity were to be totally eqtinguished, that would be a purely subjective loss.
Reason, nature, etc. etc. etc.
Originally posted by HalitoseMorality is not required to be objective. The fact that it is subjective does not diminish its "moral" quality.
[b]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?
I guess there would be nuances of belief. This would not be comparible to an unfounded belief in Muffy, for example.
It would probably have been better worded had I ...[text shortened]... ent then.
But morality is in no danger of being extinguished because of it.
How so?[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's not an example of "intra-cultural cannibalism", is it?
That'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.
As I said, it depends what you mean by culture... This would be the case were I describing the "Ïrian Jayan" culture.
Besides what people do during wars is hardly indicative of what their basic cultural beliefs are.
Unless the action is espoused, vindicated and encouraged by their cultural beliefs and practices.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettOf course it does. Man is an animal with the power of reason and social tendencies as part of his constitution. We tend to act in certain basic ways across virtually all cultures to reinforce these basic aspects of our nature. That's what "natural moral law" is.
Reason, nature? Nature doesn't communicate any moral values. Reason can say that certain actions will have deleterious consequences against our persons, but I don't see how reason can make any formal, objective moral standards. Even if humanity were to be totally eqtinguished, that would be a purely subjective loss.
Originally posted by HalitoseThis is a silly sideshow. Not everything that occurs inside a culture at some point in its existence is truly part of the culture. Even if it were, the treatment of fallen foes' bodies is hardly a matter for the "natural law" anymore than what side people part their hair on is.
[b]That's not an example of "intra-cultural cannibalism", is it?
As I said, it depends what you mean by culture... This would be the case were I describing the "Ïrian Jayan" culture.
Besides what people do during wars is hardly indicative of what their basic cultural beliefs are.
Unless the action is espoused, vindicated and encouraged by their cultural beliefs and practices.[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderIt may be "natural" to safeguard our collective wellbeing, but that doesn't make it objective. Whether humanity prospers or dies, or whether we treat each other with kindness or with cruelty, is of little importance to the universe itself, or to any of the other species that inhabit it. Such things are only of importance to humans themselves. Our entire moral outlook is conditioned by our particular evolutionary development within our own particular environment. If humanity had evolved differently, or in a different environment, our moral outlook would be different. The entire thing is completely subjective.
Of course it does. Man is an animal with the power of reason and social tendencies as part of his constitution. We tend to act in certain basic ways across virtually all cultures to reinforce these basic aspects of our nature. That's what "natural moral law" is.
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettIf you are using the word "subjective" to mean peculiar to particular individuals, then no the natural law is not subjective. If you mean that the specific natural law that applies to humans only applies to humans and not rocks then that is "subjective" in some sense of the word, but not in the sense people usually use it when they are discussing whether there is an "objective" morality or not.
It may be "natural" to safeguard our collective wellbeing, but that doesn't make it objective. Whether humanity prospers or dies, or whether we treat each other with kindness or with cruelty, is of little importance to the universe itself, or to any of the other species that inhabit it. Such things are only of importance to humans themselves. Our entire mor ...[text shortened]... environment, our moral outlook would be different. The entire thing is completely subjective.
EDIT: A cut and paste for ya illustrating the difference:
You may ask how the natural law is known. Through human reason and conscience, answer the natural-law thinkers. The natural-law doctrine usually assumes that man has a specific nature which involves certain natural needs, and the power of reason to recognize what is really good for man in terms of these needs.
Christian thinkers, such as Aquinas and John Locke, think the natural law is of divine origin. God, in creating each thing, implanted in it the law of its nature. The phrase about "the laws of nature and of nature's God" in our Declaration of Independence derives from this type of natural-law doctrine. However, this particular theological viewpoint is not always found in writers who uphold the natural law, for these include such pre-Christian thinkers as Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero, and such modern secular philosophers as Kant and Hegel.
There has been much opposition to natural-law philosophy from the very beginning. Indeed, one might say the opposition came first, for the idea of natural right or justice was developed in ancient Greece to counter the views of the Sophists, who were "conventionalists." These men believe that law and justice are simply man-made conventions. No action is right or wrong unless a particular community, through its positive laws or customs, decrees that it is right or wrong. Then it is right or wrong in that particular place and time -- not universally. By nature, the Sophists say, fire burns in Greece as it does in Persia, but the laws of Persia and of Greece, being matters of convention, are not the same. The "conventionalist" or "positivist" doctrine of law has come down all the way from the ancient Sophists to many of our modern law-school professors.
http://radicalacademy.com/adlernaturallaw.htm
Originally posted by HalitoseYes, I do. So do they. If an omnipotent God was real, do you think that morality would be variant? Of course not. We'd all have the same morals.
In some cultures and societies they love their neighbour; in others, they eat their neighbour. Do you have a personal preference?
Self-defeating arguments a go-go.
Originally posted by rwingettSo if you say that Hitler was a bad man based on your subjective moral opinion is that not different from saying that Hitler was just plain bad?
Morality is not required to be objective. The fact that it is subjective does not diminish its "moral" quality.
If you are saying that there is no difference between subjective opinion and objective fact you would not make much of a scientist.
Originally posted by HalitoseHalitose: 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.
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.
(...)
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.
Ever hear of deontology; contractarianism; act consequentialism or utilitarianism; virtue ethics; etc.? They all posit objective foundations for morals, even if it is the case that such objective criteria often make reference to subjective personal states. OK, so you subscribe to the idea that moral facts supervene on whatever it may happen to be that constitutes divine volition. Well, the atheist, too, can postulate a number of objective accounts for moral facts -- most of which are frankly much more reasonable and coherent than yours. These might be accounts related to categorical norms rooted in reason; or mediative states between fully rational agents; or inherently valuable states of the world; or the normative priority of the virtuous person; or etc. If you read some works related to these secular ethical theories, you'll note how they don't make any mention about descriptive theories of origins -- and that's because such descriptive theories are completely irrelevant with respect to the issue at hand. So, your claim that an atheist's descriptive beliefs concerning origins may preclude his endorsing objective accounts of morality is just complete hogwash.
Related to the topic of this thread, you are demonstrating that many theists do, in fact, labor under delusion. One such delusion is the idea that divine command constitutes a reasonable account of morality; and further, that it is the only account that allows for any sort of objective treatment. From my epxerience, this delusion is widespread and constitutes a dangerous sort of stunted intellectual development. Most of what it accomplishes is entirely regrettable. It constantly reinforces infantile methods of moral deliberation related to heteronomous constraint; methods that suppress genuine thought on the part of the agent. Relatedly, it reinforces a sort of fundamentalist attitude, in which adherence to heteronomous law and conformity to doctrinal account are given unjustified normative priority.
Originally posted by knightmeisterAre you saying that no person though Hitler to be a good man?
So if you say that Hitler was a bad man based on your subjective moral opinion is that not different from saying that Hitler was just plain bad?
If you are saying that there is no difference between subjective opinion and objective fact you would not make much of a scientist.
Originally posted by no1marauderNot everything that occurs inside a culture at some point in its existence is truly part of the culture.
This is a silly sideshow. Not everything that occurs inside a culture at some point in its existence is truly part of the culture. Even if it were, the treatment of fallen foes' bodies is hardly a matter for the "natural law" anymore than what side people part their hair on is.
Is this a variation of the "he's not a true Christian" defence? 😛
If so, by what criteria is something "truly part of the culture"?