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, 12:45 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 12:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 12:22 PM)tear151 Wrote:  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.

Right: "a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something."

You said it was before the law, this led me to assume with standard definitions that Right as you used it was

"a moral entitlement to have or do something".

It appears you did not mean this, apologies.

If it's mutually agreed upon only, what you described was a social contract, which is a lot different than the concept of rights, though it can lead to legal rights as a direct result of the social contract.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 12:49 PM
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.

Yes dead people, several from before the 20th century.. and I would say Rawls didn't say that. That's what I was getting at though. Your objecting to arguments not held in the same esteem philosophically or as much socially now outside of the religious social right.

I meant by who, who socially or actual in this current era.

To Rawls, His arguments, the ones I'm aware of, bent around the lines of what you are saying isn't legitimately what we should or do call morality. His arguments showed how it truly IS just what actions are done for self interest. That's what works in his concept of the Veil of Ignorance, where people would prefer to choose the moral/social atmosphere that benefits the most people if they didn't know who they would be.

I just don't see your insistence to dismiss morality as necessarily more than our ingrained self-interest acted upon.

"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, 12:53 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 12:49 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 10:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  A right granted to us, and provided to us by the State? Correct.

Yes dead people, several from before the 20th century.. and I would say Rawls didn't say that. That's what I was getting at though. Your objecting to arguments not held in the same esteem philosophically or as much socially now outside of the religious social right.

I meant by who, who socially or actual in this current era.

To Rawls, His arguments, the ones I'm aware of, bent around the lines of what you are saying isn't legitimately what we should or do call morality. His arguments showed how it truly IS just what actions are done for self interest. That's what works in his concept of the Veil of Ignorance, where people would prefer to choose the moral/social atmosphere that benefits the most people if they didn't know who they would be.

I just don't see your insistence to dismiss morality as necessarily more than our ingrained self-interest acted upon.

He argued that if you concluded that something was a good idea from behind the veil, that was what made things good or bad, moral and immoral.

My desire to dismissal is mostly based around the ambiguity of morality, and that using self interested alone in a philosophical concept allows far more precise arguments for the running of political entities, and prevents people from hiding in the shadows of ambiguity with such a loaded and historically significant word.

Morality as a word has too much baggage.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 01:02 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 12:53 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 12:49 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes dead people, several from before the 20th century.. and I would say Rawls didn't say that. That's what I was getting at though. Your objecting to arguments not held in the same esteem philosophically or as much socially now outside of the religious social right.

I meant by who, who socially or actual in this current era.

To Rawls, His arguments, the ones I'm aware of, bent around the lines of what you are saying isn't legitimately what we should or do call morality. His arguments showed how it truly IS just what actions are done for self interest. That's what works in his concept of the Veil of Ignorance, where people would prefer to choose the moral/social atmosphere that benefits the most people if they didn't know who they would be.

I just don't see your insistence to dismiss morality as necessarily more than our ingrained self-interest acted upon.

He argued that if you concluded that something was a good idea from behind the veil, that was what made things good or bad, moral and immoral.

My desire to dismissal is mostly based around the ambiguity of morality, and that using self interested alone in a philosophical concept allows far more precise arguments for the running of political entities, and prevents people from hiding in the shadows of ambiguity with such a loaded and historically significant word.

Morality as a word has too much baggage.

Atheist has "too much" baggage and so does Colored... these terms are diswayed from being used by organizations or people when they have a proper context to be used though.

There is nothing wrong with words having multiple usages and convoluted ideas to various people in different context. There is just more harm in limiting usage to certain contexts but not in other scenarios.

I could argue with you that Objective morality could exist and I can understand the people that are atheists who believe in it.. with usage from my point to the Moral Foundations theory which I do think is significantly interesting... but I don't actually belief in the objective concept some take so I won't engage in that thread. It's not something I could "prove" exists just something that is understandable. I wouldn't think humans could ever know it like Kant kinda thought he was good enough to do.

"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, 01:13 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 01:02 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 12:53 PM)tear151 Wrote:  He argued that if you concluded that something was a good idea from behind the veil, that was what made things good or bad, moral and immoral.

My desire to dismissal is mostly based around the ambiguity of morality, and that using self interested alone in a philosophical concept allows far more precise arguments for the running of political entities, and prevents people from hiding in the shadows of ambiguity with such a loaded and historically significant word.

Morality as a word has too much baggage.

Atheist has "too much" baggage and so does Colored... these terms are diswayed from being used by organizations or people when they have a proper context to be used though.

There is nothing wrong with words having multiple usages and convoluted ideas to various people in different context. There is just more harm in limiting usage to certain contexts but not in other scenarios.

I could argue with you that Objective morality could exist and I can understand the people that are atheists who believe in it.. with usage from my point to the Moral Foundations theory which I do think is significantly interesting... but I don't actually belief in the objective concept some take so I won't engage in that thread. It's not something I could "prove" exists just something that is understandable. I wouldn't think humans could ever know it like Kant kinda thought he was good enough to do.

It's a different kind of baggage, Atheist has a very specific meaning, with connotations thrown onto it, Morality doesn't have a definite definition, that's kind of the point.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 01:17 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
Why is this so hard to understand?
Of course self interest plays a part in morality, but only a part.
By wishing to receive the good things society has to offer (self interest) you agree to give others these same societal benefits. (morality)
By behaving in this way you are looking out for you own best interests.
If every person relied on self interest alone it would be chaotic at best. You tear, know this to be true. Your odds of happy survival are better if both you and others are watching your back rather than just you alone.
Refusing to be helpful to others, and just looking out for #1, is just another way of saying you wanna be a dick.
Don't be a dick.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 01:27 PM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2014 01:31 PM by tear151.)
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 01:17 PM)pablo Wrote:  Why is this so hard to understand?
Of course self interest plays a part in morality, but only a part.
By wishing to receive the good things society has to offer (self interest) you agree to give others these same societal benefits. (morality)
By behaving in this way you are looking out for you own best interests.
If every person relied on self interest alone it would be chaotic at best. You tear, know this to be true. Your odds of happy survival are better if both you and others are watching your back rather than just you alone.
Refusing to be helpful to others, and just looking out for #1, is just another way of saying you wanna be a dick.
Don't be a dick.

If every person relied on self interest alone it would be chaotic at best. You tear, know this to be true. Your odds of happy survival are better if both you and others are watching your back rather than just you alone.

I'm going to reprhrase to make the problem obvious

If every person relied on self interest alone it would be chaotic at best. You tear, know this to be true. Your self interest is if both you and others are watching your back rather than just you alone.

Also It only benefits me if others look out for me, Sophism and lieing and cheating, whilst not being discovered... still comes under the banner... but obviously that excludes empathy, which also comes under self interest.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 01:41 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 01:27 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 01:17 PM)pablo Wrote:  Why is this so hard to understand?
Of course self interest plays a part in morality, but only a part.
By wishing to receive the good things society has to offer (self interest) you agree to give others these same societal benefits. (morality)
By behaving in this way you are looking out for you own best interests.
If every person relied on self interest alone it would be chaotic at best. You tear, know this to be true. Your odds of happy survival are better if both you and others are watching your back rather than just you alone.
Refusing to be helpful to others, and just looking out for #1, is just another way of saying you wanna be a dick.
Don't be a dick.

If every person relied on self interest alone it would be chaotic at best. You tear, know this to be true. Your odds of happy survival are better if both you and others are watching your back rather than just you alone.

I'm going to reprhrase to make the problem obvious

If every person relied on self interest alone it would be chaotic at best. You tear, know this to be true. Your self interest is if both you and others are watching your back rather than just you alone.

Also It only benefits me if others look out for me, Sophism isn't excluded.

That little gem again. *sigh*
Consequences of a moral society deter this.
No, you can't elimate sophism 100%, there will always be self centered sociopaths out there.
Whether you like it or not, you rely on the morality of others everytime you interact with people. Especially if you act only in your own self interests.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 01:48 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 01:41 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 01:27 PM)tear151 Wrote:  If every person relied on self interest alone it would be chaotic at best. You tear, know this to be true. Your odds of happy survival are better if both you and others are watching your back rather than just you alone.

I'm going to reprhrase to make the problem obvious

If every person relied on self interest alone it would be chaotic at best. You tear, know this to be true. Your self interest is if both you and others are watching your back rather than just you alone.

Also It only benefits me if others look out for me, Sophism isn't excluded.

That little gem again. *sigh*
Consequences of a moral society deter this.
No, you can't elimate sophism 100%, there will always be self centered sociopaths out there.
Whether you like it or not, you rely on the morality of others everytime you interact with people. Especially if you act only in your own self interests.

Yes, Convincing people to continue doing this would be in my self interest while I stopped believing it, but this is philosophy, I'm more concerned about absolute truths.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 01:50 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
Good luck with that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: