Atheism and morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2015, 02:42 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 02:40 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  To me if I have two apples, and I acquire two more, I have four apples. If you don't think this is objectively true, then I have no idea what you mean by objectivity, let alone agree with you.

It's contingent on variable definitions of numbers and addition. Have you ever studied advanced mathematical theory?

...

Analogy: is Euclidean geometry objectively true?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
27-05-2015, 02:51 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 02:24 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, I'm not sure why it would be any other way? I don't lack beliefs here. So any attempt to truly understand someone else here, involves navigating their reasoning along side of mine.

Well, that can just as well be done silently, no? When I want to learn about someone else, the last thing I do is start injecting my views into their exposition.

Now, if you want to have your views alongside those of others, perhaps you'd ought to state them plainly as you've been asked to do several times, so that others can perform the same compare-and-contrast exercise?

Anything else seems a bit disingenuous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
27-05-2015, 02:53 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
Here's my simple view on morality. It is fluid, changing, evolving.

If I take a step back and look at nature in general, everything is amoral. The stars brighten the nighttime sky, tides ebb and flow, the sun rises, rain falls, volcanoes erupt, plants grow and are eaten by herbivores, herbivores are eaten by carnivores and the dead bodies of carnivores return to the earth in one form or another to feed the next generation of plants.

None of these events is moral or immoral. They occur and that's it.

I don't think morality can exist where consciousness is absent, where there is no understanding of consequences. The moon is unaware that its gravity causes tides. The sea is unaware that its waves leads to erosion. As far as we know, among animals there is little or no understanding of consequences. The lion may be slightly aware that if it does not kill the wildebeest it does not eat, but that is not understanding in the human sense of the word. The killing of the wildebeest by the lion is good for the lion's welfare and bad for the wildebeest's, but in itself it is not a moral or immoral act. Morality only comes into existence with human consciousness and action.

Again as far as we know, only human beings can identify actions and their consequences as good or bad for themselves or others. Only human beings understand that actions can promote or harm physical or mental welfare. Only human beings have a sense of morality - and morality only applies to human beings.

One basic principle I start from is to identify that all human beings should be equal regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, physical or mental ability or other condition. (I find this difficult to hold in place though as I automatically place greater value on certain human beings; i.e. my immediate family and so on.) It is relatively easy to define humanist morality but it is much harder to put it into practice. How do we define harm? How do we know what makes people happy? When is sex moral? Why is murder legal in war? What about the death penalty? Lying? Eating fatty foods? Abortion? Pornography? Drugs? Treatment of animals?

If we gauge by happiness, is utilitarianism the correct ethics code to abide by? Mills' assertions certainly had its criticisms. Does it ignore justice? Is calculating utility a self-defeating effort? Can one really aggregate utility effectively?

The more I burrow into morality the less I realize I know and have thought through efficiently. I will say as a general rule of thumb, I try to maximize happiness and minimize suffering for people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 02:56 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 02:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Therefore, then, there are "objective" matters which depend on subjective contexts - they are only "objectively" true within subjective contexts.

Those of us with access to a dictionary might note that they are therefore not "objective" at all.

Uhm, you perhaps needs to learn the distinctions between moral absolutism vs moral realism (objectivism), vs moral relativism.

Here's a good place to start: "http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_absolutism.html"

You seem to be conflating absolutism, and objectivism as one and the same.

Someone who believes that given a certain context, somethings are objectively wrong, like torturing babies just for fun, is not a moral relativist, but a moral realist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 02:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Uhm, you perhaps needs to learn the distinctions between moral absolutism vs moral realism (objectivism), vs moral relativism.

Here's a good place to start: "http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_absolutism.html"

You seem to be conflating absolutism, and objectivism as one and the same.

Someone who believes that given a certain context, somethings are objectively wrong, like torturing babies just for fun, is not a moral relativist, but a moral realist.

... except "torture" and "fun" are themselves wholly subjective terms.

Any appeal to purported contextual objectivity collapses down into tautological irrelevance. "The things I think are bad, are bad in the contexts in which I think they are bad, and are not bad in the contexts in which I think they are not bad". How very useful a conclusion that is.

PS:
(27-05-2015 02:42 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Analogy: is Euclidean geometry objectively true?

?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
27-05-2015, 03:39 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 02:42 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's contingent on variable definitions of numbers and addition. Have you ever studied advanced mathematical theory?

No. Nothing beyond calculus II, or the typical math requirements for Business majors.

And as far as I can tell by looking through semi-reputable arguments about this online, as to whether math is subjective or objective, there's doesn't seem to be a settled view here:

http://web.stanford.edu/~meehan/xyz/parents.html

From what I can tell, by briefly reading through a few things, that those arguing for subjectivism, seem to be appealing to factual relativism to make the case.

Quote:Analogy: is Euclidean geometry objectively true?

Don't know what that is. So I lack a belief.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 03:42 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
You've studied up to Calc II but don't know what Euclidean geometry is?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 03:45 PM
Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 03:42 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  You've studied up to Calc II but don't know what Euclidean geometry is?

We're not dealing with the best and brightest here Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 04:02 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 03:05 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... except "torture" and "fun" are themselves wholly subjective terms.

So is truth, and wrong. Fuck so is evidence, and facts, theory. And possibly every other word in the english dictionary.

Quote:Any appeal to purported contextual objectivity collapses down into tautological irrelevance.

Just in regards to morality? Or in regards to anything that appeals to purported contextual objectivity?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 04:16 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 03:42 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  You've studied up to Calc II but don't know what Euclidean geometry is?

I don't recall ever hearing the term Euclidean Geometry, if it was something mentioned in my geometry class we're talking about 20 years ago, if it was in my Calculus courses we're talking about 10 years ago.

So perhaps my photographic memory is failing me here, lol.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: