Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2016, 07:54 PM
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
(24-08-2016 07:12 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  
Stevil Wrote:Governments implement and enforce laws, not moralies.
Sure there are people that try to promote their own moral beliefs, their ideologies.

By doing that, they are enforcing certain moralities as well. To punish someone for stealing is to declare the act of stealing to be wrong. Governments can and do act as moral entities, if only in a wider context than individuals.
That's a very clouded view of the purpose of law.
Laws aren't there to force people to be moral.
Laws are to support a safe and thriving society.
If we don't have property laws then perhaps we have physical confrontations when we attempt to gain or retain possession of something. Perhaps we can't go to work because we need to sit at home guarding our stuff.
There is a real reason why we have laws, rather than the ideology of moral rights.
(24-08-2016 07:12 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  
Stevil Wrote:We are individuals competing for limited resources, you cannot please everyone.

While it may be hard to achieve, it is not inconceivable that you could.
You can't. Resources are limited.
(24-08-2016 07:12 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  You are trying to argue against goodness as an utopic ideal, whereas I am arguing for the usefulness of that same concept in action, as well as for its results. You are aware of the fact that we are making progress, as a society, are you not?
We are making progress (IMO) but eroding away moral values, eroding away the expectation that law is to force people to be moral. We are moving more towards a diverse society. This is because of globalisation. Our citizens come from all walks of live, various cultures and beliefs. We have to be tolerant in order to have a stable and thriving society.

(24-08-2016 07:12 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  Is that same progress not moral in itself?
No. It is focussing on safety, stability and thriving. It is casting away the idea that their is a right and wrong,.
I don't want the moral police. I want freedom and autonomy.
(24-08-2016 07:12 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  You seem to be arguing from an absolutist's point of view, ironically enough. You cannot have an amoral society, not even in theory.
Yes you can. Just define the purpose for govt and law. Define a "constitution" so that govt can't force its morals on people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 07:57 PM
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
(24-08-2016 07:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 05:55 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  Responding to your last statement here, as an opener, but I'm reacting to other parts of your post as well.

The fact that they are trying to implement their morals into law is not only expected, it is laudable as an exercise in democracy. That you and I believe their morality is wrong and misguided is something we ought to try and convince the rest of the world of, in turn.
No, I don't want a moral society.
I just want a safe, stable and thriving society.
I want to make my own decisions regarding moral choice, thank you very much.

You cannot have those things without morality. You are, in fact, arguing for an anarchic model. The kind of society that isn't very concerned with ethics is a deeply dysfunctional one and will never get you anywhere but backwards. One lacking morality in every way isn't a society at all, it's a natural habitat where predators and their activities are the highlight of every day, forever.

What exactly do you mean by moral choice and why do you think I'm trying to make any kind of decisions for you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 08:06 PM
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
(24-08-2016 03:26 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Do Atheists need to be reminded to be moral?

Not this one.Drinking Beverage

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
24-08-2016, 08:19 PM
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
(24-08-2016 07:54 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 07:12 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  By doing that, they are enforcing certain moralities as well. To punish someone for stealing is to declare the act of stealing to be wrong. Governments can and do act as moral entities, if only in a wider context than individuals.
That's a very clouded view of the purpose of law.
Laws aren't there to force people to be moral.
Laws are to support a safe and thriving society.
If we don't have property laws then perhaps we have physical confrontations when we attempt to gain or retain possession of something. Perhaps we can't go to work because we need to sit at home guarding our stuff.
There is a real reason why we have laws, rather than the ideology of moral rights.
(24-08-2016 07:12 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  While it may be hard to achieve, it is not inconceivable that you could.
You can't. Resources are limited.
(24-08-2016 07:12 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  You are trying to argue against goodness as an utopic ideal, whereas I am arguing for the usefulness of that same concept in action, as well as for its results. You are aware of the fact that we are making progress, as a society, are you not?
We are making progress (IMO) but eroding away moral values, eroding away the expectation that law is to force people to be moral. We are moving more towards a diverse society. This is because of globalisation. Our citizens come from all walks of live, various cultures and beliefs. We have to be tolerant in order to have a stable and thriving society.

(24-08-2016 07:12 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  Is that same progress not moral in itself?
No. It is focussing on safety, stability and thriving. It is casting away the idea that their is a right and wrong,.
I don't want the moral police. I want freedom and autonomy.
(24-08-2016 07:12 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  You seem to be arguing from an absolutist's point of view, ironically enough. You cannot have an amoral society, not even in theory.
Yes you can. Just define the purpose for govt and law. Define a "constitution" so that govt can't force its morals on people.

Stevil Wrote:That's a very clouded view of the purpose of law.
Laws aren't there to force people to be moral.
Laws are to support a safe and thriving society.
If we don't have property laws then perhaps we have physical confrontations when we attempt to gain or retain possession of something. Perhaps we can't go to work because we need to sit at home guarding our stuff.

It is not the purpose of law I am describing, but rather the frame in which it operates. And that frame is a moral one, derived from and arrived at by people, gradually, over time.

I think we are talking about different kinds of moralities here, in fact, you seem to be rejecting the relativistic connotation of the word, which might be causing the thrust of our disagreement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 08:38 PM
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
Stevil Wrote:You can't. Resources are limited.

It's conceivable, which is what really matters here.

Stevil Wrote:We are making progress (IMO) but eroding away moral values, eroding away the expectation that law is to force people to be moral. We are moving more towards a diverse society. This is because of globalisation. Our citizens come from all walks of live, various cultures and beliefs. We have to be tolerant in order to have a stable and thriving society.

You can't have a society absent of moral values. You can't have progress without them either, needless to say.

The law is to force people to be moral, the kind of moral your own society prescribes by virtue of its laws. You seem to be intent on focusing on a very isolated semantic form of moral, however, regardless of context, so I can see this conversation going nowhere fast.

I'm trying to be as cooperative as I can here, but I can't help but be amused at your digressions, especially the one present in the second greater half of that bit of your post I'm currently responding to. You're taking us in a million different directions and expect me to connect the dots for you.

As for the rest of your post, I have either already addressed your other points in earlier remarks or you made some new ones that have nothing to do with what I said. Either way, this conversation ran its course, I think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 09:22 PM
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
(24-08-2016 08:38 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  
Stevil Wrote:You can't. Resources are limited.

It's conceivable, which is what really matters here.
It's not realistically conceivable. That's why it is a pipedream

(24-08-2016 08:38 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  You can't have a society absent of moral values. You can't have progress without them either, needless to say.
Yes you can. You just can't conceive of a society with laws based on practical goals rather than moral ones.
I can realistically conceive of it.

(24-08-2016 08:38 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  The law is to force people to be moral,
No it's not. If you are forced (coerced to behave in such a way, then you aren't making moral choices and you aren't behaving morally. You are just law abiding.
(24-08-2016 08:38 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  I'm trying to be as cooperative as I can here, but I can't help but be amused at your digressions, especially the one present in the second greater half of that bit of your post I'm currently responding to. You're taking us in a million different directions and expect me to connect the dots for you.
I'm trying to elaborate so that you can understand my thinking. But if you were interested you would ask specific questions.
Fair enough if you are not interested in my obviously different opinion here.
(24-08-2016 08:38 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  Either way, this conversation ran its course, I think.
OK, fair enough.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 09:37 PM
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
(24-08-2016 08:38 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  
Stevil Wrote:You can't. Resources are limited.

It's conceivable, which is what really matters here.

Stevil Wrote:We are making progress (IMO) but eroding away moral values, eroding away the expectation that law is to force people to be moral. We are moving more towards a diverse society. This is because of globalisation. Our citizens come from all walks of live, various cultures and beliefs. We have to be tolerant in order to have a stable and thriving society.

You can't have a society absent of moral values. You can't have progress without them either, needless to say.

The law is to force people to be moral, the kind of moral your own society prescribes by virtue of its laws. You seem to be intent on focusing on a very isolated semantic form of moral, however, regardless of context, so I can see this conversation going nowhere fast.

I'm trying to be as cooperative as I can here, but I can't help but be amused at your digressions, especially the one present in the second greater half of that bit of your post I'm currently responding to. You're taking us in a million different directions and expect me to connect the dots for you.

As for the rest of your post, I have either already addressed your other points in earlier remarks or you made some new ones that have nothing to do with what I said. Either way, this conversation ran its course, I think.

Yes, but morality has evolved and changed over the centuries. It was against the law not more than five decades ago for a woman to take out a loan on a car without her husband or father co-signing. Women couldn't buy a house either. Was that law moral four decades ago and now it isn't?

Just over a century ago it was legal for children to work in factories but it was illegal for women to vote. Was that moral? There are hundreds of laws from past centuries that those alive at the time thought was the height of morality but we find completely discriminating and immoral today. So how do you know a law is moral or immoral?

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
24-08-2016, 10:05 PM
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
(24-08-2016 09:37 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 08:38 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  It's conceivable, which is what really matters here.


You can't have a society absent of moral values. You can't have progress without them either, needless to say.

The law is to force people to be moral, the kind of moral your own society prescribes by virtue of its laws. You seem to be intent on focusing on a very isolated semantic form of moral, however, regardless of context, so I can see this conversation going nowhere fast.

I'm trying to be as cooperative as I can here, but I can't help but be amused at your digressions, especially the one present in the second greater half of that bit of your post I'm currently responding to. You're taking us in a million different directions and expect me to connect the dots for you.

As for the rest of your post, I have either already addressed your other points in earlier remarks or you made some new ones that have nothing to do with what I said. Either way, this conversation ran its course, I think.

Yes, but morality has evolved and changed over the centuries. It was against the law not more than five decades ago for a woman to take out a loan on a car without her husband or father co-signing. Women couldn't buy a house either. Was that law moral four decades ago and now it isn't?

Just over a century ago it was legal for children to work in factories but it was illegal for women to vote. Was that moral? There are hundreds of laws from past centuries that those alive at the time thought was the height of morality but we find completely discriminating and immoral today. So how do you know a law is moral or immoral?

Moral can mean many things. Generally, you guys are using it right now to describe what you conceive of as moral, even though you might not realize it. When you say moral, you're implying a moral agent that deems something moral as well.

I'm not talking about my morals here, nor am I talking about yours, I'm talking about a particular society's(whichever's). And yes, societies' moralities evolve, as do most other kinds, least of all religious ones.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 10:16 PM
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
(24-08-2016 10:05 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 09:37 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Yes, but morality has evolved and changed over the centuries. It was against the law not more than five decades ago for a woman to take out a loan on a car without her husband or father co-signing. Women couldn't buy a house either. Was that law moral four decades ago and now it isn't?

Just over a century ago it was legal for children to work in factories but it was illegal for women to vote. Was that moral? There are hundreds of laws from past centuries that those alive at the time thought was the height of morality but we find completely discriminating and immoral today. So how do you know a law is moral or immoral?

Moral can mean many things. Generally, you guys are using it right now to describe what you conceive of as moral, even though you might not realize it. When you say moral, you're implying a moral agent that deems something moral as well.

I'm not talking about my morals here, nor am I talking about yours, I'm talking about a particular society's(whichever's). And yes, societies' moralities evolve, as do most other kinds, least of all religious ones.

Well, if you talk to religious people especially fundamentalist Christians they'll tell you morality is universal and unchanging. There are a bunch of threads around here about subjective morality vs objective morality. I'm not going down that rabbit hole though. Goodevil

Tongue

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 10:19 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2016 10:23 PM by excitedpenguin.)
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
There is no rabbit hole to go down in. They can declare it whatever they like, the fact that you and me and them can all have different views on morality makes morality intrinsically subjective and relative. You can't sidestep that with any kind of argument. It just is. It's a fact.

Because even if God was real and he shared his morality with us, it would still be his morality, and we would still have had different moralities up to that point, regardless of what happened next. And since no God revealed itself so far, and I'm not holding my breath, morality is subjective and relative, not absolute and objective, unless the latter qualifiers are used in a certain fashion, such as referring to the morality of a whole society as being objective, but that's still kind of a stretch, really.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: