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, 12:02 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 11:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(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.

No it isn't. Not directed at anyone, merely showing that natural rights are an example of that reversion.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 12:03 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 11:58 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Is my definition acceptable to you?

"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"

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 12:06 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 12:03 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:58 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  No one 'gave' right. All rights were established by mankind.

Is my definition acceptable to you?

"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"

Not to me. Human rights precede law.

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, 12:08 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 12:02 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  Is that directed at me? If so, I did no such thing.

No it isn't. Not directed at anyone, merely showing that natural rights are an example of that reversion.

Maybe 'natural rights' are, but basic human rights are not as they are established by reciprocal agreement. What I demand for myself I must grant to 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, 12:09 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 12:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 12:02 PM)tear151 Wrote:  No it isn't. Not directed at anyone, merely showing that natural rights are an example of that reversion.

Maybe 'natural rights' are, but basic human rights are not as they are established by reciprocal agreement. What I demand for myself I must grant to others.

Why? Does this mean I can demand the right to use your property equally to you? Can you go into more detail?

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 12:19 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 12:09 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 12:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  Maybe 'natural rights' are, but basic human rights are not as they are established by reciprocal agreement. What I demand for myself I must grant to others.

Why? Does this mean I can demand the right to use your property equally to you? Can you go into more detail?

How does that come anywhere near qualifying as a basic human right?

How about: the right to life, to free speech, to property, to self determination, to equity before the law.

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, 12:22 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 12:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 12:09 PM)tear151 Wrote:  Why? Does this mean I can demand the right to use your property equally to you? Can you go into more detail?

How does that come anywhere near qualifying as a basic human right?

How about: the right to life, to free speech, to property, to self determination, to equity before the law.

If you claim these rights are objective, you need to explain why. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by before the law, that's not specific enough

(I have an idea of what you mean, but this is philosophy after all, rigorous logic is required or there's literally no point to any of this, i'm not intentionally trying to annoy you, let me make that clear)

I certianly have a want to life, and a want to property, but how that morphs into a justified entitlement seems... sketchy.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 12:28 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?
Sometimes expectation of rights is due to status quo, sometimes due to cultural or religious behaviours, sometimes due to law and sometimes due to the attributes of being human i.e. requiring clothes, understanding value in property etc.

In some cases if government take away rights they will find that society rebels and overthrows the government. In other cases they simply find that it takes continuous effort via great force and threat of violence to take away certain rights. the path of least resistance is to not fight against human nature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 12:31 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 12:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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?
Sometimes expectation of rights is due to status quo, sometimes due to cultural or religious behaviours, sometimes due to law and sometimes due to the attributes of being human i.e. requiring clothes, understanding value in property etc.

In some cases if government take away rights they will find that society rebels and overthrows the government. In other cases they simply find that it takes continuous effort via great force and threat of violence to take away certain rights. the path of least resistance is to not fight against human nature.

Would you agree with my earlier long winded definition on non moralistic rights?

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 12:38 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 12:22 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 12:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  How does that come anywhere near qualifying as a basic human right?

How about: the right to life, to free speech, to property, to self determination, to equity before the law.

If you claim these rights are objective, you need to explain why.

Why do you keep doing that? I did not say, or even imply, that these rights are objective - I said they are reciprocally agreed upon.

Quote:I'm not exactly sure what you mean by before the law, that's not specific enough
(I have an idea of what you mean, but this is philosophy after all, rigorous logic is required or there's literally no point to any of this, i'm not intentionally trying to annoy you, let me make that clear)

"Equality before the law, also known as equality under the law, equality in the eyes of the law, or legal equality, is the principle under which all people are subject to the same laws of justice (due process)."

Quote:I certianly have a want to life, and a want to property, but how that morphs into a justified entitlement seems... sketchy.

It's not sketchy in the least, it's mutually agreed upon.

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: