A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2016, 04:38 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 03:54 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Not all religions are corrupt. Faith is not corrupt.

Faith is a complete failure as an epistemology. It can be used to support any and all positions making it absolutely worthless for determining truth.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
03-01-2016, 04:49 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 04:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I'm not too worried about what most professional philosophers think.

No but you took it upon yourself to speak about the moral systems of atheists, being more reasonable than theists. Without addressing what atheists you’re referring to, or which moral philosophy you’re talking about as more reasonable. Atheists who subscribe to subjective morality? Atheists who subscribe to moral realism? Is one group more reasonable than the other?

Is the position of most philosophers (who tend to be moral realist) more reasonable than that of most theists? Is it more reasonable than of those who subscribe to the view that morality is subjective? Are philosophers who subscribe to moral nihilism the more reasonable ones on the question of morality than everybody else? Are moral nihilist more reasonable than those who subscribe to some form of virtue ethics?

Quote:Unfortunately most people in my country believe in some sort of invisible magical undetectable god[…]Your beliefs differ from that of many Christians. Many Christians believe the bible is the inspired word of their god.

Yet only half of them subscribe to christianity. And most of those who identify as Christian are nominally so. Clearly not the sort you mean when speaking of “most christians”. You likely don’t personally know a single person that fits the description you have of “most christians”, who believe the bible is “inspired by God.” Your interactions with such individuals likely doesn’t extend beyond the internet, and perhaps youtube videos.

At least when I interact with unbelievers on the internet, I don’t see them as representative of any other the sort of unbelievers that flock to the internet, but not particularly representative of unbelievers as whole, or even as a majority. In fact though I often make hasty generalizations about atheists on the internet, I do so with reservations, that these generalizations are likely to be sloppy at best, because that's the nature of internet interactions.

I likely know far more about what most Christians believe then you do. Religion as you’ve acknowledged before is something you don’t really get, or understand, so whatever you might have to say about it, can only be taken with a grain of salt. Just like you wouldn’t put much stock in my view of New Zealanders, I don’t put much stock in your view of most Christians. You’re so removed from the life of most Christians, that you’re unable to relate or understand them at all. Their lives are the sort that you have difficult time empathizing with or getting, which is the same for me when it comes to folks like yourself.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 05:27 PM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2016 05:30 PM by Stevil.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 04:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No but you took it upon yourself to speak about the moral systems of atheists
The only thing that atheists have in common is their lack of belief that god(s) did it.
Given this lack of belief they don't accept any assertions for objective morality, they don't generally accept anyone's authority regarding morality. So instead they tend to use the golden rule or "maximise happiness, minimise pain", but yeah atheists have a wide variety of moral basis.

(03-01-2016 04:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  being more reasonable than theists.
It is never reasonable to suggest that something is moral because god said so.



(03-01-2016 04:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Is one group more reasonable than the other?
The various moral beliefs of atheists are more reasonable than the various moral beliefs of theists.



(03-01-2016 04:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Many Christians believe the bible is the inspired word of their god.

Yet only half of them subscribe to christianity. And most of those who identify as Christian are nominally so. Clearly not the sort you mean when speaking of “most christians”.
Please take a look at the words I actually used.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 05:44 PM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2016 05:50 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 05:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The various moral beliefs of atheists are more reasonable than the various moral beliefs of theists.

It doesn’t seem like you know much about the various moral beliefs of theists or atheists, lol. I do wonder how much of a difference there is between your nominal christian/theist friends, and your atheists friends moral beliefs?

Quote:The only thing that atheists have in common is their lack of belief that god(s) did it.
Given this lack of belief they don't accept any assertions for objective morality, they don't generally accept anyone's authority regarding morality. So instead they tend to use the golden rule or "maximise happiness, minimise pain", but yeah atheists have a wide variety of moral basis.

But yet once again you’ve formed a generalization about them. You claim that most people who lack a belief in God, don’t accept moral realism, which I don’t think is true. It’s clearly not true of professional philosophers, the folks more likely to give the question more thought then the general population.

I think you’re just speaking for yourself, and perhaps some handful of folks you interacted with who don’t believe in God, but I don’t see any evidence to suggest that this is true for most unbelievers, and see a variety of reasons to believe otherwise. I mean didn’t Sam Harris write a book endorsing Objective Morality?

Quote:It is never reasonable to suggest that something is moral because god said so.

Is that the official moral view of the Catholic and Angelican Church, of mainline protestantism, which seems to the predominant forms of Christianity in NZ?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 06:02 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 02:44 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 02:23 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Your discussion of morality as complex while ascribing to the belief that morality is objective and not subjective or relative, is contradictory.

You assert that unambiguously, slavery was wrong. But at the same time, describe morality as being a spectrum of gray. You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Some moral questions are difficult to answer, often involving a wide variety of considerations, some are less so. No one is going to debate whether or not torturing babies just for fun is immoral or not.

Pretty much everyone is filled with disgust at the thought of doing that.

And that is an evolved reaction, that's what makes it nearly universal among humans.
We also react similarly to the torture of any baby mammal because of our evolved trait of empathy.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-01-2016, 06:05 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 02:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 02:26 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As long as the parents are doing what God wants, it's moral. Right Tomasia?

Without immoral institutions like religion and corrupt governments (judging them as such from my moral perspective), we would be a lot better off as a species.

Well according to you morality is whatever anyone wants it to be. There are no right or wrong answers to moral questions. At best it amounts to swinging popular opinion in your favor, endorsing laws and positions favorable to your individual palette. Ain't that right?

No, that is yet another of your false, simplistic dichotomies. Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-01-2016, 06:07 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 03:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 02:51 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  In the event it isn't obvious, I ascribe to the belief that morality only exists as a societal construct. In a species without societies or communities, morals are irrelevant concepts and instead it's about individual survival.
OK, given our past conversations, I understand that you are of the position that for morality to exist then it must be in the context of a society. I don't agree with that, but that point isn't pertinent to the question I've just asked.

How could it not be? Morality has no meaning absent a society.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-01-2016, 06:09 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 03:18 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 03:12 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But it does pose and interesting conundrum about what to do when living in a society that governs in a way that you deem immoral. Who is correct? Society or the individual?

Is one of them correct?

If a group of people think U2 is the greatest band ever, and one lone individual thinks they suck. Is one of them any more correct than the other?

There is no correct - that is opinion and has fuck all to do with a discussion of morality.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-01-2016, 06:11 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(23-12-2015 07:38 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(23-12-2015 07:32 AM)Ace Wrote:  holon form ?

It's just a philosophical concept of all things all being whole & continually apart of larger concepts compounded. It gets used in woo-explanations by people who believe some certain ideas of consciousness being a higher plane of existence.

Shades of Teilhard de Chardin?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 06:16 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 03:43 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 02:54 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  That's a meaningless distinction. You are asserting that communication took place.

That does not follow. Although most forms of mental illness inhibit social interactions it is not always the case.

A false belief can still have a positive effect. (JT Eberhard has a good speech on this.) But its still a false belief.

Countless atrocities have been done in the name of god. When was the last war fought in the name of satan? How many suicide bombers yell "satan rocks" when they go boom?

If an all-powerful god had an all important message to convey to beings he loved then it is the responsibility/obligation of that deity to do so.
And he does, by his understanding and time, for our sake. Just because we may not be able to fully perceive the scope of the work of God doesn't mean it isn't evident.

Except, of course, that it is not at all evident. The world looks exactly like one without any gods.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: