What is wrong with being ATHIEST?

Originally posted by bbarr
I want to do these things because I take them as constituents of living a flourishing human life (a life that is, in an Aristotelian sense, eudaimon).

When I die I will return to that from whence I came. What I will leave behind, or be incorporated into, is all that is. I don't see any of this as a problem. I think the desire for immortality resu ...[text shortened]... at is. Don't ask me to explain any of this more fully. If you do, I'll start writing poetry.

So do these things which you consider good because they are part of a "flourishing human life" constitue your value system? Is that how you determine what is right and wrong?

Originally posted by yousers
So do these things which you consider good because they are part of a "flourishing human life" constitue your value system? Is that how you determine what is right and wrong?

Of course the things I consider good follow from my value system, this is tautologous. I determine what is right and wrong by reasoning about them. I do not think there is any algorithm for determining what is right and wrong; it is not criterial of an ethical theories adequacy that it provide a decision procedure.

Originally posted by bbarr
Of course the things I consider good follow from my value system, this is tautologous. I determine what is right and wrong by reasoning about them. I do not think there is any algorithm for determining what is right and wrong; it is not criterial of an ethical theories adequacy that it provide a decision procedure.

Is it true that one can reach different conclusions about what is known/true by using alternative methods to JTB? I will assume it is.
If so, is your value system founded upon your reasoning superior to theirs?

Originally posted by yousers
Is it true that one can reach different conclusions about what is known/true by using alternative methods to JTB? I will assume it is.
If so, is your value system founded upon your reasoning superior to theirs?

Of course it is the case that if you define 'knowledge' or 'truth' in some other manner, then different conclusions will be reached about what is known or true. I don't think anything interesting follows from this trivial point. If I define 'chair' in some non-standard way, then I will reach different conclusions about what things in the world are chairs. As mentioned before, the term 'knowledge' is not univocal. Propositional knowledge has, as necessary component, belief, justification, truth, and some fourth Gettier condition. If you disagree with this, then please present an alternative that we can discuss. In the absence of an alternative, I'll just take this issue as settled.

Originally posted by bbarr
Of course it is the case that if you define 'knowledge' or 'truth' in some other manner, then different conclusions will be reached about what is known or true. I don't think anything interesting follows from this trivial point. If I define 'chair' in some non-standard way, then I will reach different conclusions about what things in the world are cha ...[text shortened]... that we can discuss. In the absence of an alternative, I'll just take this issue as settled.

So philosophical preference is then at the heart of your value system. One who does not accept JTB may have different values than yourself. Therein lies the relativity of atheistic value systems.

Originally posted by yousers
So philosophical preference is then at the heart of your value system. One who does not accept JTB may have different values than yourself. Therein lies the relativity of atheistic value systems.

That certainly doesn't follow, and I'm not sure why you think it does. Somone may believe that 2+2=5, but that doesn't mean that their belief is justified, nor that math is relativistic. Out of morbid curiousity, just what do you think 'relativism' means when it comes to ethics?

Originally posted by bbarr
That certainly doesn't follow, and I'm not sure why you think it does. Somone may believe that 2+2=5, but that doesn't mean that their belief is justified, nor that math is relativistic. Out of morbid curiousity, just what do you think 'relativism' means when it comes to ethics?

But the results of ethic theories are not based on self-evident axioms. You won't find many people reasoning that 2+2 = 5, but conflicting ethical results are common.

Originally posted by Coletti
But the results of ethic theories are not based on self-evident axioms. You won't find many people reasoning that 2+2 = 5, but conflicting ethical results are common.

That is irrelevant to the claim yousers made above. His "argument" took as a premise the possibility of disagreement between theories of knowledge, and then he proceeded to "reason" to the conclusion that secular ethical theories are relativistic. Not only is this "argument" spurious, for the reason presented above, but it also shows a complete ignorance of both secular ethical theories and the notion of ethical relativism. Even cursory research into either secular ethics or relativism would have cleared up yousers' obvious confusion.

Originally posted by bbarr
That is irrelevant to the claim yousers made above. His "argument" took as a premise the possibility of disagreement between theories of knowledge, and then he proceeded to "reason" to the conclusion that secular ethical theories are rel ...[text shortened]... s or relativism would have cleared up yousers' obvious confusion.

Popular secular ethics, the way most secular people think, are relativistic. I hope you do not assume that secular people study ethical theories or complicated Kantian ethics and know what the Categorical Imperative is. They don't give a hoot. Especially in Europe secular people, the growing majority, are to be looked upon as relativists ["Everybody has his own truth"]. What is happening in Europe is also happening in the States, but not yet on that scale as it is happening in Europe now. The vast majority of the population in the United States will embrace a form of moral relativism and a form of utilitarianism, same as the majority of people in Europe are doing now.

Will you be supporting such a development, or do you prefer a different one ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Popular secular ethics, the way most secular people think, are relativistic. I hope you do not assume that secular people study ethical theories or complicated Kantian ethics and know what the Categorical Imperative is. They don't give a ...[text shortened]... rting such a development, or do you prefer a different one ?

I argue against both utilitarianism and ethical relativism in every ethics course I teach. Of course I oppose such developments.

Also, I think you are somewhat misperceiving as moral relativism expressions of tolerance. If you were to poll European citizens and ask them:

Q) Is it morally permissible for the Saudi Arabian government to allow the execution of women convicted of adultery, if that is the will of the majority?

Q) Is it morally permissible for the state of Texas to allow the execution of the mentally disabled, if that is the will of the majority?

I bet the vast majority of Europeans would anwer 'no' to both the above. But this indicates that they are not ethical relativists. They believe that there are at least some moral norms that are universally binding.

Originally posted by bbarr
That certainly doesn't follow, and I'm not sure why you think it does. Somone may believe that 2+2=5, but that doesn't mean that their belief is justified, nor that math is relativistic. Out of morbid curiousity, just what do you think 'relativism' means when it comes to ethics?

Bbarr, sureley you can see this! You just agreed that different theories of knowledge/truth can find different truths. Value systems are based on things we know or believe to be true. Ethical systems are based on value systems. Therefore, people can have different ethical systems. They are RELATIVE.
You argue that people are not justified in having some values. But to do so you employ your preferred theory of knowledge. Your method is not accepted by all people and is not superior to others.

Originally posted by yousers
Bbarr, sureley you can see this! You just agreed that different theories of knowledge/truth can find different truths. Value systems are based on things we know or believe to be true. Ethical systems are based on value systems. Therefore, people can have different ethical systems. They are RELATIVE.
You argue that people are not justified in having som ...[text shortened]... d theory of knowledge. Your method is not accepted by all people and is not superior to others.

I said no such thing. I said that people who define 'knowledge' or 'truth' differently will reach different conclusions about what is known or what is true. I never said their conclusions would be correct, and I certainly didn't say that they would "find different truths" (whatever that means exactly).

Value systems are indeed based on things that we know to be true. It is false, however, that all ethical systems are based on theories of value. Only axiological ethical systems are based on theories of value. Deontological ethical systems are not based on theories of value. Kant's ethical theory, for instance, is based on considerations of practical rationality (I'll spare you the details), not on considerations of what in the world is valuable. We can skip over this technical point, 'cause I know what you're trying to say.

You think that just because people disagree about ethical systems, that it follows that ethical systems are relative. This is both stupid and a misuse of the notion of relativism as applied to ethics. The fact that people disagree about ethical systems doesn't make ethical systems relative any more than the fact that people disagree about the age of the Earth makes the age of the Earth relative. Disagreement does not entail relativism. Repeat this to yourself until you get it. Then go look up ethical relativism.

Yes, I argue that some values are unjustified. No, I do not employ my theory of knowledge in these arguments. If I were to argue that, say, valuing the suffering of others is unjustified, I would not make any reference to the JTB (plus Gettier condition) theory of knowledge. You are simply mistaken on this point, so it would behoove you to stop making this claim.

Anyway, just because the JTB theory of knowledge is not accepted by everyone, it doesn't follow that it is on a par with other theories. You simply assert this without argument, and I see no reason in the absence of argument to take this assertion of yours seriously. Once again, for the third (fourth?) time, if you have an alternative theory of knowledge you think superior to the JTB theory of knowledge, then put up or shut up.

Originally posted by bbarr
I said no such thing. I said that people who define 'knowledge' or 'truth' differently will reach different conclusions about what is known or what is true. I never said their conclusions would be correct, and I certainly didn't say that they would "find different truths" (whatever that means exactly).

Value systems are indeed based on things that ...[text shortened]... theory of knowledge you think superior to the JTB theory of knowledge, then put up or shut up.

'I never said their conclusions would be correct, and I certainly didn't say that they would "find different truths"'

So then, what is correct and what is not? What is the "right" truth and what is wrong? You seem to be implying an ultimate truth about which we just had an extensive discussion - you said I was being ridiculous asking for certainty.

Originally posted by yousers
'I never said their conclusions would be correct, and I certainly didn't say that they would "find different truths"'

So then, what is correct and what is not? What is the "right" truth and what is wrong? You seem to be implying ...[text shortened]... discussion - you said I was being ridiculous asking for certainty.

Truth is an objective matter. Either a proposition is true or it is not. Truth is a metaphysical relation that holds between things that are assertorial and have propositional content (like propositions, beliefs, statements, sentences, and so on) and the way the world is. Take the proposition 'snow is white'. This proposition is true just in case snow is actually white. If snow is actually white, then that proposition is true, regardless of whether anybody believes it and regardless of whether anybody is certain of it.

Certainty is an epistemological notion. For one to be certain (rather than just supremely confident) of a proposition, it must not only be true (i.e., correspond to the facts) it must also be the case that one has reasons sufficient to show that the probability of the proposition's being true is 1. As I mentioned earlier, we can't do this with any propositions (except maybe demonstrative propositions of the Cartesian sort like 'I exist now'😉.

Please, in your future posts, do not mistake my claims concerning the objectivity of truth as claims concerning certainty. These are radically different sorts of relations.

Originally posted by bbarr
I argue against both utilitarianism and ethical relativism in every ethics course I teach. Of course I oppose such developments.

Also, I think you are somewhat misperceiving as moral relativism expressions of tolerance. If you were to ...[text shortened]... here are at least some moral norms that are universally binding.

Bbarr: "I argue against both utilitarianism and ethical relativism in every ethics course I teach."

Thank God you are doing at least something I approve of 😛

Bbarr: " But this indicates that they are not ethical relativists. They believe that there are at least some moral norms that are universally binding."

They switch positions between universalism and relativism whenever it suits them. It is more an instance of indifference than tolerance for Europeans to be relativists. Their attitude is a mixture of pragmatism and indifference, which is often mistaken for tolerance. "You do not bother me and I do not bother you". It is also a matter of intellectual fashion to state the cliché that "Everybody has his own truth". It gives a certain status at parties of being "up to date" [It is a bit tricky to call it "modern"] and being "tolerant".

Of course there are universal values left, usually called the "Human Rights" ....... and of course environmental issues are considered universal. Thinking about it there are no reasons to imagine the worst case scenario for Europe yet ..... 😀