Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2014, 08:52 AM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 08:43 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 08:19 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  No you didn't. I just relooked at the post. In no where do you even use the words self-interest or separate... You say what legitimacy do you have to push it onto the world, but I don't see that as the same thing.

I still don't see where it truly is anything with false implications. I'm not sure why these are of concern to anyone. The religious implication is something I see as irrelevant in as in philosophical sense, they've been mainly rendered pointless in these topics for centuries.

I said

"Why should I behave in a way you consider moral for its own sake"

Who proposes you do? ..outside of the religious movements.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 10:31 AM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 08:52 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 08:43 AM)tear151 Wrote:  I said

"Why should I behave in a way you consider moral for its own sake"

Who proposes you do? ..outside of the religious movements.

Kant, Locke, rawls... Quite a lot of people. Stuff like property being.an objective right.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 10:41 AM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 10:31 AM)tear151 Wrote:  Kant, Locke, rawls... Quite a lot of people. Stuff like property being.an objective right.

A right granted to us, and provided to us by the State? Correct.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:00 AM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 10:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 10:31 AM)tear151 Wrote:  Kant, Locke, rawls... Quite a lot of people. Stuff like property being.an objective right.

A right granted to us, and provided to us by the State? Correct.

No, rights that precede the existence of a State; rights that must be honored by the state.

These are reciprocal rights that we acknowledge for ourselves and others.

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
09-12-2014, 11:15 AM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2014 11:35 AM by tear151.)
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 10:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 10:31 AM)tear151 Wrote:  Kant, Locke, rawls... Quite a lot of people. Stuff like property being.an objective right.

A right granted to us, and provided to us by the State? Correct.

Perhaps I misinterpreted but Locke was for natural rights, i.e "Objectively justified self-entitlement to certain wants".

Not the idea of "Legally Justified self entitlement to certain wants based on it being part of the "social contract" or "Legal system" or "Code of ethics" (It doesn't matter what you call it) you agreed to (or were forced to comply too) and demanding to receive such wants, or the system faces possible non-compliance from you in the future"

Long winded, but hopefully thorough enough.

Natural rights require some objective standard that makes them good, which simply doesn't exist. The idea of rights I posted there doesn't require any morals at all.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:51 AM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 11:00 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, rights that precede the existence of a State; rights that must be honored by the state.

So who of what gave us these preexisting rights then? Mother nature? Even the framers of the constitutions claim that inalienable rights where endowed to us by the creator, so what are you proposing as the alternative?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:54 AM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
^ Do you see what I mean about how easy it is to unwittingly return to an objective position without realising it. Many "Moral subjectivists" I've met hold that conception of rights to be an objective good (Then again they are my age and also anarchists and marxists...)

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:58 AM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 11:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:00 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, rights that precede the existence of a State; rights that must be honored by the state.

So who of what gave us these preexisting rights then? Mother nature? Even the framers of the constitutions claim that inalienable rights where endowed to us by the creator, so what are you proposing as the alternative?

No one 'gave' right. All rights were established by mankind.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:58 AM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 11:54 AM)tear151 Wrote:  ^ Do you see what I mean about how easy it is to unwittingly return to an objective position without realising it. Many "Moral subjectivists" I've met hold that conception of rights to be an objective good (Then again they are my age and also anarchists and marxists...)

Is that directed at me? If so, I did no such thing.

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
09-12-2014, 12:00 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 11:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:00 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, rights that precede the existence of a State; rights that must be honored by the state.

So who of what gave us these preexisting rights then? Mother nature? Even the framers of the constitutions claim that inalienable rights where endowed to us by the creator, so what are you proposing as the alternative?

The second sentence, which you failed to quote.

Chas Wrote:No, rights that precede the existence of a State; rights that must be honored by the state.

These are reciprocal rights that we acknowledge for ourselves and others.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: