Morals, Christianity, Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-11-2014, 01:07 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(21-11-2014 07:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-11-2014 04:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You appear to have misunderstood me - and quite thoroughly, at that.

Saying "ought" expresses, fundamentally, a preference. This is not the same as an expectation. Do you understand the difference?

Ah, here lies the rub.

An ought is a duty, not a preference.

You're certainly free to assert as much.

I disagree. So, then what?

(21-11-2014 07:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  To speak of ought as a preference, would be no different than to speak of laws as a preference, i.e there should be a law banning men from wearing skinny jeans. It's the difference between saying i wish we had moral obligations, and believing we actually do have moral obligations. It's the difference between wishing we were bound to certain principles, and believing that we are in fact bound to these certain principles.

The difference between wishing there was a law banning men from wearing skinny jeans, and believing there is in fact a law banning men from wearing skinny jeans. The difference between wishing that we had a obligation to take care of the poor, and believing that we all have this obligation.

You can desire that we have moral obligations all you want, but to believe that we have them is just wishful thinking.

Cool story, bro. Needs more dragons.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2014, 04:34 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(21-11-2014 12:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
Quote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ought

Ah, yes. "lol dictionary"; the beloved recourse of the tedious. Do note that there are, right there, multiple meanings given.
Oh this is just rich. You're a joke cjlr. You complain that I don't use words "correctly" then you complain when I present a dictionary definition. Are you for real? Sadcryface2


(21-11-2014 12:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If I were to say to you that I think you ought to do something, what would you think I meant by it?
I would think you are arrogant and delusional to be trying to tell me what I ought to do. As I have said, you are not me, you haven't lived my life, you don't know my culture, beliefs or situation. You are totally unqualified to tell me what I ought to do.

If you were to word it differently as you have suggested "ought" in your mind is an expression of preference e.g. "I would prefer it if you would do X", then perhaps I might ask you to clarify why that is your preference or perhaps I would simply ignore you because your preference is irrelevant to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 08:21 AM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(21-11-2014 07:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  If there are no negative consequences for not doing something, it's hard to imagine how that thing is an obligation. Consider

This is possibly true, but the real question is, is it negative consequences that create obligations. Or are negative consequences just an aspect of breaking an obligation, but not the cause of the obligation itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 08:29 AM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(23-11-2014 08:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-11-2014 07:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  If there are no negative consequences for not doing something, it's hard to imagine how that thing is an obligation. Consider

This is possibly true, but the real question is, is it negative consequences that create obligations. Or are negative consequences just an aspect of breaking an obligation, but not the cause of the obligation itself.

Negative consequences don't create obligations. Rationally understanding that it would be better to avoid those negative consequences and instead foster positive outcomes provides impetus to create obligations.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 08:53 AM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(21-11-2014 07:45 AM)unfogged Wrote:  That can be done without any reference to a deity of any sort making the whole claim pointless. No god is needed and no god has been shown to exist; Ockham's razor comes down squarely on the side of moral obligations existing without gods.

I think you can claim there are moral obligations without explicitly referencing a deity, sort of like the Discovery Institute can talk of irreducible complexly without explicitly talking about God. Or the ways we might be able to speak of something being designed, without explicitly mentioning the designer, or about a house being robbed, without saying much of anything about the robber.

I'm sure you can see how in my examples it's not as black and white as it appears.

If you claim moral obligations do in fact exist, than it goes without saying that this implies the existence of whatever forces and powers that make them so, even if that just means the existence of minds capable of making obligations to themselves.

Now you can in fact go on ad nauseam about the existence of moral obligations, without explicitly referring to these forces and powers. Or even out of a lack of self-reflection not really considered the causes all that much, and might find yourself in the uncomfortable position of not being able to articulate or defend these forces all that well, but has been my concern all along. Not that you believe that there are moral obligations, but more so in what you believe make them so.

And here i've discussed the problem with many of the claims of what make them so. What people mean for the most part here are not actual obligations, but their own personal taste and preferences. I've argued that these beliefs in moral obligations are imaginary. They are in essence believed to exist, for no other reason than a desire to believe they exist, as belief in belief.

The Apostle Paul observed those outside of Judeo-christianity, outside of religious scriptures, the Gentiles, observing the moral law, which he believed was written in the human heart. In fact if Paul were around today, he may say the same of many atheists, who seem to live moral lives, and strive to do so as if they had a obligation to do so.

But for Paul the moral law existed in the human heart, that man has some cosmic obligation, imbedded in his very being, to love others, and to care for them, even if they may constantly fail in these obligations. But if we are to believe that the obligations exist in the human heart, at the core of our being, than we are also led to believe in who and what forces wrote them there in the first place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 08:59 AM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(23-11-2014 08:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But if we are to believe that the obligations exist in the human heart, at the core of our being, than we are also led to believe in who and what forces wrote them there in the first place.

Right, and that force is evolution. Empathy has positive survival value for a social species, so the genes for that survive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Machias's post
23-11-2014, 09:00 AM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(23-11-2014 08:29 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Negative consequences don't create obligations. Rationally understanding that it would be better to avoid those negative consequences and instead foster positive outcomes provides impetus to create obligations.

Would you then say, that understanding that certain negative consequences should be avoided, and positive outcomes should be encouraged, render encouragements of all positive outcomes to be obligations?

Is it this sphere of negative/positive results the cause of moral obligations?

Perhaps we can rationally see the harm of greed on the particular health of a society, and that encouraging us to not be greedy could result in positive results in regards to social health. But should this alone render us as having an obligation not to be greedy?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 09:05 AM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(21-11-2014 01:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Cool story, bro. Needs more dragons.

[Image: red_dragons_with_details.jpg]

DONE.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
23-11-2014, 09:06 AM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(23-11-2014 08:59 AM)Machias Wrote:  Right, and that force is evolution. Empathy has positive survival value for a social species, so the genes for that survive.

And all the other aspects that evolution shaped for our nature, such as hatred, violence, apathy, a mind cultivated to be attracted to delusions, and self-deceptions had no survival value?

And more importantly, is all that is required for us to recognize our moral obligation, to look inward, to contemplate our own nature, that we can see the underlying reality of the obligations and duties of being human, placed there by millions of years of random mutations and natural selection?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 09:11 AM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(23-11-2014 09:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Would you then say, that understanding that certain negative consequences should be avoided, and positive outcomes should be encouraged, render encouragements of all positive outcomes to be obligations?

No, the understanding is part of the reasoning process that individuals use to define their moral obligations.

Quote:Is it this sphere of negative/positive results the cause of moral obligations?

No, it is not the cause. It is part of the reasoning process that individuals use to define their moral obligations.

Quote:Perhaps we can rationally see the harm of greed on the particular health of a society, and that encouraging us to not be greedy could result in positive results in regards to social health. But should this alone render us as having an obligation not to be greedy?

No, it is part of the reasoning process that individuals use to define their moral obligations.

Quote:Now you can in fact go on ad nauseam about the existence of moral obligations, without explicitly referring to these forces and powers.

And you have yet to provide a shred of evidence that those "forces and powers" exist. As many people have shown, moral obligations are explainable without any such referent and the fact that different people acknowledge different moral obligations is evidence that they are not defined by a single source.

Quote:What people mean for the most part here are not actual obligations, but their own personal taste and preferences.

From my perspective what you have defined are, at best, legal obligations. Anything imposed by an outside agency regardless of the individual's will is not a moral obligation.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: