Podcast #102 - Morality
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-04-2013, 06:11 PM
Podcast #102 - Morality

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: Podcast #102 - Morality
So...I love these podcasts.

This PodCast, however, bothered me in places.

First of all, I do not believe Morality is a creation of religion, an Atheist most certainly can be moral. Religion is used to control morality, not to create it.

So with that in mind, so many of the scenarios keep assumptions of moral values that started with religion. For instance: Lying to protect someone. Protecting someone, i see as a moral action.

Who says dishonesty is wrong?

The bible certainly does. The devil is the "father of the lie." But apart from the bible, what's the issue with dishonesty? Why is everyone entitled to the truth? Why are you obliged to tell it to them? Just because we have a policy of being honest with loved ones to foster an environment of trust, doesn't mean that there's some moral value in honesty.

What about... copyright infringement? Apart from the "Copying is stealing" nonsense that the IP control freaks like to spout, what this amounts to is the concept that "following the law is Good." I do not accept that. The Law is not necessarily "Good." The law can be good, but I do not believe that there is any inherent virtue in following the law for the law's own sake.

You may be noticing here that people have different opinions on this stuff, and ultimately, that's the point. That is where Atheists and religious types will ostensibly differ when it comes to morality. For the religious person, morality is dictated by the invisible man in the sky. Assuming an unambiguous communication of morality (big assumption), and assuming they all follow the same invisible man in the sky, there is a supreme moral authority they can turn to in order to answer the question of "Is this right? Or is this wrong?" They are moral objectivists, believing there is one right answer to all morality questions, dictated by an authority.

For the Atheist, there is no higher moral authority. We learn our morals from others, it is true, but ultimately, every person is responsible for their own morality. This isn't "moral relativism." Moral Relativism suggests that morality should be judged by the prevailing views of the society at the time. A roman slave owner could be a moral man, because it was acceptable for them to own slaves in roman culture. What the Atheist has, is Moral Subjectivism. Rather than placing the ultimate responsibility for morality in the hands of an authority (god), like the Moral Objectivist, or in the hands of the culture of the time, like the Moral Relativist, the Moral Subjectivist realizes that the individual is the ultimate moral authority, for themselves, and no other. This does not make them Nihilists. I freely admit to being a moral subjectivist. i also have very strong moral views of what I consider right, or wrong. That does not mean, however, that any other person in the entire world will have the same opinions as I do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes CompletelySolo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: