Originally posted by scottishinnzIf an omnipotent God was real, do you think that morality would be variant? Of course not.
Yes, 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.
Self-defeating arguments a go-go.
Uh... in my opinion, the ultimate ethic is love, and it by definition cannot be obtained without free moral agency, hence the "variant".
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseTry reading the entire post; I truly hate the strategy of "Balkanizing" a post.
[b]Not everything that occurs inside a culture at some point in its existence is truly part of the culture.
Is this a variation of the "he's not a true Christian" defence? đ
If so, by what criteria is something "truly part of the culture"?[/b]
EDIT: "Idiosyncratic behavior is not cultural" http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vcwsu/commons/topics/culture/culture-definitions/bodley-text.html
So not every practice engaged in at some time by some people in a culture, is cultural.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloEver hear of deontology; contractarianism; act consequentialism or utilitarianism; virtue ethics; etc.?[/b][/b]
Halitose: [b]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 eronomous law and conformity to doctrinal account are given unjustified normative priority.
Uh, yes.
They all posit objective foundations for morals, even if it is the case that such objective criteria often make reference to subjective personal states.
Unless they are all variant descriptions of a singular objective moral system, you're proving my point: morals are simply the sum total of the prevailing intellectual, aesthetic and moral climate. The fact that there are so many ethical systems clamouring for your attention in a pluralistic moral market should be proof enough that these "secular ethical theories" are just that.
Let’s take a case study: the Nuremburg trials.
When the German officers of the Third Reich were being tried for their "crimes against humanity”, their defense was that they were simply following orders: what right did the allied victors have to impose their moral system on the conquered German army? Does might make right?
The problem LJ, is that your lovely theories are all well and good, but as atheism is inherently pluralistic, you can't choose one theory above the other without using some subjective criterion to do so. How do you determine whether a given action is right or wrong irrespective of its adherents' beliefs and the prevailing moral climate? This is why Dawkins himself has on numerous occasions quoted Darwin on this very issue, that "[in the universe] there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."*
* http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins
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.
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.
If Christianity were true, the universe was created by a divine, moral and reasoning Agent. This provides both ontological and epistemic support for humans to be morally sentient and for a universal moral law.
On the other hand, if Atheism were true, the universe [and life] happened by amoral chance, for no specific reason and with no specific reason. From the atheistic perspective, ontologically, not only is there no reason to trust your own reason, there is no reason to suppose objective moral facts. Also, see above for why descriptive theories are completely relevant to determining the ultimate ethic.
The rest of your post, though mostly just a rant, has some relevant points which I might address at a later stage if I have the time.
Originally posted by HalitoseWere the Nuremberg trials indeed morally justifiable? What did anyone gain from all those Nazis being hanged except the satisfaction of revenge?
Let’s take a case study: the Nuremburg trials.
I do wonder what their outcome would have been had the UK not had the death penalty at that time.
You tend to go on and on about Nazis and cannibals. Do you have some more pertinent material?
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseActually the Nuremberg trials prove the exact opposite; that different societies and culture can agree that certain acts are morally wrong and punishable regardless of the laws of individual nation states. The idea of international law itself is an outgrowth of Natural Law theory; see Hugo Grotius' works.
[b]Ever hear of deontology; contractarianism; act consequentialism or utilitarianism; virtue ethics; etc.?[/b][/b]
Uh, yes.
They all posit objective foundations for morals, even if it is the case that such objective criteria often make reference to subjective personal states.
Unless they are all variant descriptions of a singular objec , has some relevant points which I might address at a later stage if I have the time.[/b]
3 edits
I see you deliberately left off material which changed the meaning of the quote. The full quote is:
"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."
This is an entirely different matter from saying there is no good or evil. Shame on you, Hal.
EDIT: I also can't find any other place where this particular quote is attributed to Darwin; in every other place I found it, it's source is one of Dawkin's books.
Originally posted by no1marauderNot the first time Hal's done this with Darwin, the man directly responsible for eugenics, Nazism, the Khmer Rouge, and possibly even spam.
I see you deliberately left off material which changed the meaning of the quote. The full quote is:
"[b]The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderBegging the question, No1: is this cannibalism idiosyncratic?
Try reading the entire post; I truly hate the strategy of "Balkanizing" a post.
EDIT: "Idiosyncratic behavior is not cultural" http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vcwsu/commons/topics/culture/culture-definitions/bodley-text.html
So not every practice engaged in at some time by some people in a culture, is cultural.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThis is really beside the point. I highlighted it because it was one example where a specific ethical theory was prefered over another.
Were the Nuremberg trials indeed morally justifiable? What did anyone gain from all those Nazis being hanged except the satisfaction of revenge?
I do wonder what their outcome would have been had the UK not had the death penalty at that time.
You tend to go on and on about Nazis and cannibals. Do you have some more pertinent material?
Originally posted by no1marauderThe Germans certainly didn't agree.
Actually the Nuremberg trials prove the exact opposite; that different societies and culture can agree that certain acts are morally wrong and punishable regardless of the laws of individual nation states. The idea of international law itself is an outgrowth of Natural Law theory; see Hugo Grotius' works.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhether Dawkins was citing Darwin here or not is of little concern to me. The rub is in that he said it. I don't see how the omited text changes anything. It's merely evidence to support his presuppositions.
I see you deliberately left off material which changed the meaning of the quote. The full quote is:
"[b]The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."
This is an entirely different matter from saying ttributed to Darwin; in every other place I found it, it's source is one of Dawkin's books.[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseIt detracts from the force of your statement to say "Many Germans disagreed" rather than "the Germans", though, doesn't it? And you're ignoring the difference regarding this issue between East & West Germany after the war, not to mention the current position, so it's hardly splitting hairs, really.
Sigh. You're splitting hairs. Some of the Germans didn't agree. Just like some Americans, Britons, etc supported the German cause.
In evolutionary terms, Nazi ethics was a failure. Why is that?