What is wrong with being ATHIEST?

Originally posted by bbarr
Suppose subject S knows a proposition K. It follows from this, minimally, that S believes K, that S is justified in believing K, and that K is true. In short, if you don't believe something, then you can't know it; if you believe something for no good reason, then you don't know it (this is what distinguishes knowledge from lucky guesses), if that which y ...[text shortened]... , etc.

Out of curiousity, where do you get your information about secular ethical theories?

I understand the part about not knowing what you don't believe. And if you believe it, you believe it is true. What I don't understand is that knowledge needs to be true for anyone else. Would you say knowledge is true for the individual but not for all people?

It makes sense that if you believe K is true, you have some justification (reasoning), for thinking it is true. It my be a psychological issue, but I don't think mentally sound people believe things are true without some reason. If the justification is strong, then the believe is strongly held, but if it is weak, then so is the belief. For instance, I think I'm going to a book sale when I get home. This would be a weak belief since I have good reasons to think it may not happen.

My view of morality depending on God assumes that God is immutable regarding his prescriptive will - the Law of God. So the law does not change with time as God does not change his laws for man. And since those laws are fixed by the nature of God, they do not change.

I get information on secular ethics from many places. Mostly I read about philosophy, not specifically ethical theories. I get information from used text books, philosophy web sites, some audio lectures (library tapes), and discussions like these.

Are true propositions only true for those who believe them true. A true proposition for you may be false to me? Or is 2+2=4 whether anyone believes it or not?

(I can get you some book titles when I get home if you want.)

Originally posted by bbarr
'Jusitification' is shorthand for 'epistemic justification'. To be epistemically justified in believing K, S must have internal access to reasons for believing K that (minimally) suffice to make K more likely true than false. In other words, S must be able to provide reasons in support of K, where these reasons weigh in favor of the truth of K such that these reasons suffice to make it more likely that K than not-K.

Is "S must have internal access to reasons for believing K" the same as "S must be able to provide reasons in support of K"? What if S has internal access to reasons but cannot express them to another person? e.g. if S is a two-year old child?

Or, suppose a three-year old says that X (who is never at home) is its Daddy because Mommy says so. Is this sufficient justification to make the mother's/child's assertion more true than false?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why should the reasoning that other beings have similar feelings stop a person from hurting them? After all, while you can certainly reason that driving a sword through a baby will hurt the baby, you also know that you will experience no physical pain in the process.

Let's take some concrete examples:

1. A woman is being raped. She stabs her at ...[text shortened]... so because the hurt of being burgled is less than the hurt of being shot?

Or do you disagree?

You are, of course, being disingenous as usual. The individual on each case would have to come to their own ethical conclusions based on their ethical theory. the fact that different interpretions are possible doesn't mean that NO ethical theory is present as you and Coletti are asserting. Christians come to different conclusions as to whether capital punishment is justified under "Divine Command" ethics; that does not mean there is no such thing as DC ethical theory.

You're trying to take the argument off into tangents but in both cases you are presuming that the one making the choice has perfect information that A) She will "only" be raped and B) The homeowner will "only" be robbed. Of course, they have no way of knowing this; they might reasonably assume that the criminal in either case might kill them. No level of empathy would allow one to be killed by another if it could be avoided. You'll have to come up with better examples if you want to show that a non-theistic ethical theory is impossible or that an ethical theory based on reason and empathy isn't logical.

For all you "Divine Command" ethicists please state whether you agree that it is OK to stick a sword in a baby if God tells you so and if the answer is yes, explain how that is ethical. If the answer is no, explain why you can ethically not follow God's commands.

Originally posted by bbarr
See Aristotle, Hobbes, Kant, Mill, and Rawls for five radically different views about the foundations of morality. Each makes moral claims that are universal, none are relativistic, none assert that the truth of moral claims depends upon the beliefs of agents (hence, none are subjective).

Let's start with Aristotle:

"A common complaint about Aristotle's attempt to defend his conception of happiness is that his argument is too general to show that it is in one's interest to possess any of the particular virtues as they are traditionally conceived. Suppose we grant, at least for the sake of argument, that doing anything well, including living well, consists in exercising certain skills; and let us call these skills, whatever they turn out to be, virtues. Even so, that point does not by itself allow us to infer that such qualities as temperance, justice, courage, as they are normally understood, are virtues. They should be counted as virtues only if it can be shown that actualizing precisely these skills is what happiness consists in. What Aristotle owes us, then, is an account of these traditional qualities that explains why they must play a central role in any well-lived life."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/

If happiness is the highest good for each person, then why should the rapist or the murderer not indulge himself?

EDIT: And why should Aristotle's descriptive constituents of happiness and virtues be taken as the normative (I think I'm using the terms correctly - correct me if I'm wrong)?

Originally posted by no1marauder
For all you "Divine Command" ethicists please state whether you agree that it is OK to stick a sword in a baby if God tells you so and if the answer is yes, explain how that is ethical. If the answer is no, explain why you can ethically not follow God's commands.

There are no commands in the Bible that tell me to stick a sword through a baby.

Originally posted by Coletti
There are no commands in the Bible that tell me to stick a sword through a baby.

Please don't tell me you are asserting that nowhere in the Old Testament does God command the Israelites to kill babies as you and I both know that would be an easily proven falsehood. You need only explain to me whether sticking a sword in a baby is ethical if God commands it and why according to Divine Command ethicists. Your last post is a pretty pathetic dodge. You are certain that God exists and you are certain that God has interacted with men according to the Bible. Thus, it is possible that God might command you to stick a sword in a baby as he certainly commanded others to do so in the past if the Bible is to be believed. So it is a perfectly valid question to ask you if sticking a sword in a baby is ethical if God commands you to. Please answer the question.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are, of course, being disingenous as usual.

One of these days you'll say something other than "disingenuous" (sp!) and "circular argument" to give me a pleasant surprise. LOL

The individual on each case would have to come to their own ethical conclusions based on their ethical theory.

But isn't the point of choosing "reason and empathy" as your ethical theory that it leads to objective standards of moral behaviour? If now you say that it is OK for each person to come to their own conclusions, then how do you respond to the bigot who decides it is alright by his ethical theory to be hateful towards (say) homosexuals?

the fact that different interpretions are possible doesn't mean that NO ethical theory is present as you and Coletti are asserting.

Since you seem to be blessed with a near-photographic memory for assertions, perhaps you'd care to quote where I've said that NO ethical theory is present (in atheists)?

in both cases you are presuming that the one making the choice has perfect information that A) She will "only" be raped and B) The homeowner will "only" be robbed. Of course, they have no way of knowing this; they might reasonably assume that the criminal in either case might kill them. No level of empathy would allow one to be killed by another if it could be avoided.

So, a [reasonable] assumption that the self might be destroyed over-rides the certainty that the other will be destroyed in your ethical theory. In other words, it's alright to kill another person even if there is a [reasonable] chance that you might get killed instead.

So, if I pointed a pistol at your back and said "Kill that baby or I shoot," you would kill the baby ("No level of empathy ... avoided" ). In fact, even if I told you that the pistol was only two-thirds loaded (hence, providing the reasonable assumption that you will be killed), you would kill the baby. Correct?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please don't tell me you are asserting that nowhere in the Old Testament does God command the Israelites to kill babies as you and I both know that would be an easily proven falsehood. You need only explain to me whether sticking a sword in a baby is ethical if God commands it and why according to Divine Command ethicists. Your last post is a pre ...[text shortened]... you if sticking a sword in a baby is ethical if God commands you to. Please answer the question.

God no longer speaks directly to men in the way he did to Moses and Abraham. The only direct way that God speaks to us is through his Word. One fundamental tenant of Christianity is the cannon is closed, no more can be added to Scripture. So it is not possible that God will command me to stick a sword through a baby unless he does so through his written revelation - the Bible.

Originally posted by Coletti
I understand the part about not knowing what you don't believe. And if you believe it, you believe it is true. What I don't understand is that knowledge needs to be true for anyone else. Would you say knowledge is true for the individual but not for all people?

It makes sense that if you believe K is true, you have some justification (reasoning), for ...[text shortened]... ther anyone believes it or not?

(I can get you some book titles when I get home if you want.)

Truth is an objective matter. If S knows K, then K is true. If K is true, then K is true for all time, for all people. Confusions regarding this point often result from folks not fully specifying the content of what is known, failing to specify indexical terms like 'I' or 'now', the reference of which changes with the context of assertion, or demonstrative terms like 'that' and 'there'.

So, if I know that I have a headache, then the full specification of what is known is something like the proposition 'Bennett Barr has a headache on such and such a date at such and such a time". This proposition is true regardless of who believes it (e.g., you could believe this based on my current testimony, and your belief would be true), or when it is believed (e.g., I could believe this tomorrow, and it would still be true, although I may have to change the tense of certain terms like 'has' to 'had'😉.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Is "S must have internal access to reasons for believing K" the same as "S must be able to provide reasons in support of K"? What if S has internal access to reasons but cannot express them to another person? e.g. if S is a two-year old child?

Or, suppose a three-year old says that X (who is never at home) is its Daddy because Mommy says so. Is this sufficient justification to make the mother's/child's assertion more true than false?

There is no necessary connection between having access to reasons and being able to provide these reasons to another. In general, however, being able to access your own reasons for believing something will involve being able to express them (though there are hard cases where your reasons for believing P are that you are currently having an experience as if P. The content of conscious experiences are notoriously difficult to fully express in public languages), and minimally involve being able to deploy those reasons in chains of inference or reasoning.

As to your second case, the situation is not specified fully enough for me to determine whether the child is justified. Is the child reasoning inductively? If so, how strong is the inductive base of the inference? Justification based on the testimony of others will depend on whether there is supporting evidence, contrary evidence, the general trustworthiness of the testimonial source, whether there are extenuating conditions such as coercion or deception, etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by Coletti
God no longer speaks directly to men in the way he did to Moses and Abraham. The only direct way that God speaks to us is through his Word. One fundamental tenant of Christianity is the cannon is closed, no more can be added to Scripture. So it is not possible that God will command me to stick a sword through a baby unless he does so through his written revelation - the Bible.

A worthless dodge from a worthless, morally bankrupt creed. It seems perfectly clear that you would have to answer "Yes" to the question, but you know it would expose you to properly being called a fanatic. If you don't answer the question, then you are conceding that you don't believe in an ultimate moral authority either; after all, it is certainly POSSIBLE that God could command you to stick a sword in a baby - you don't have first hand knowledge of what God will do in the future. It may be "predestined" that he do so, you don't know. So is it morally ethical to stick a sword in a baby if God commands you or not - it's a fairly straightforward question, answer it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Let's start with Aristotle:

"A common complaint about Aristotle's attempt to defend his conception of happiness is that his argument is too general to show that it is in one's interest to possess any of the particular virtues ...[text shortened]... think I'm using the terms correctly - correct me if I'm wrong)?

Aristotle didn't claim that happiness is the highest good for each person. He claimed that eudaimonia, or living a flourishing human life was the highest good for each person, and that it was constitutive of living a life that was eudaimon for a person to have and excercise certain character traits (e.g., courage, honesty, temperance, etc.) which he called 'virtues'.

Aristotle would claim that the rapist or murderer ought not indulge his desires because doing so would be vicious, not virtuous, and everyone ought to strive to be virtuous so that they can lead a life that is eudaimon. This is why Aristotle's virtue-based ethical theory is not relativistic. It is universal in that there are an objective set of character traits that constitute the virtues the possession of which is necessary and sufficient for leading a life that is eudaimon. If you disagree with Aristotle that, say, courage is a virtue, then Aristotle would claim that you were simply mistaken. No relativism, no subjectivity, complete universality.

Now, you may argue that Aristotle doesn't ever deduce from self-evident premises that the set of character traits on his list are actually virtues; that he doesn't provide us any reason for thinking that he has accurately identified the virtues. But this is not an objection as to the universality of his claims. This does not show that his theory is relativistic or subjective any more than my claiming that you never deduce from self evident premises the content of your theistic ethical theory shows that your theory is relativistic or subjective or not universal. Simply put, the objection to Aristotle you provide above is irrelevant to your previous concern.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[]Originally posted by no1marauder
] You are, of course, being disingenous as usual.]

One of these days you'll say something other than "disingenuous" (sp!) and "circular argument" to give me a pleasant su ption that you will be killed), you would kill the baby. Correct?[/b/]

As you are allowed to be as snotty towards me as you please, but if I respond in kind my posts get modded, I guess I'll have to ignore your first paragraph.

It's really not that hard to figure out; an ethical theory based on reason has to be reasoned out by the actors themselves.You give another poor example; a bigot can decide to be as hateful to homosexuals in his own mind is fre to do so; however, he cannot conduct himself towards them in any different manner than he would desire others to conduct themselves towards him. Pretty simple.

The question was what would be the basis of an "Atheistic ethical theory"; you posted:

How about fear? Rationalisation? Head in the sand?

Since these are clearly NOT a rational basis for any ethical theory, you were clearly denying the existence of any basis for an "Atheistic ethical theory". You can pretend otherwise now, but your words were pretty clear to any reasonable person.

You give another poor example: my statement was "No level of empathy would allow one to be killed by another if it could be avoided.". Obviously the baby cannot kill the person in this example, so the killing of the baby would be unjustifiable. If you wish to nitpick (as I'm sure you do) I could have tried to express a perfectly common thought with 100% clarity so that you could not possibly misinterpret it (which you would have anyway). I am comfortable with the laws of self-defense in my country by and large and one is not allowed to kill an innocent to save themselves. Again, this is perfectly consistent with empathy; one would not want to be killed to save another's life without their consent. So, incorrect, as you knew.

I also would like you to answer the question if you believe sticking a sword in a baby is ethically OK if God commands it. I assume you won't use Coletti's dodge, but if you do my answer to him applies to you as well.

Originally posted by Coletti
God no longer speaks directly to men in the way he did to Moses and Abraham. The only direct way that God speaks to us is through his Word. One fundamental tenant of Christianity is the cannon is closed, no more can be added to Scripture. So it is not possible that God will command me to stick a sword through a baby unless he does so through his written revelation - the Bible.

Baloney!!!