luvluv

Would you believe I had no idea any of this was going on?

The question was rhetorical, by the way, I was just saying if there are no objective moral standards then why shouldn't a person who was so inclined not abuse a child if they a) found it pleasurable and b) thought they could get away with it? As a theist I have no such problems, because I know certain things are simply wrong, but I see it as being an inconsistency with atheism.

Amen-Moses

Then th answers to this thread should have shown you how wrong you are, atheism says absolutely nothing about moral positions, all it says is that there is no god. iow any moral stance you wish to take is perfectly consistent with atheism or for that matter any ism you wish to consider.

Amen-Moses

luvluv

I didn't read the whole thread (remind me to do that) I'm just responding to the notion that I was actually advocating the abuse of children with my question. It was meant to be provocative, not necessarily rhetorical.

You are right that an atheist could adopt any moral position he wanted, including the position that child molestation is perfectly fine. The theist is prevented from such privilidges. That's my point.

99Percent

The theist certainly also chooses to adopt the moral position he wants. That he pretends to agree with his God's commandments suits him fine. However there is obviously no hand of God that is actually preventing him from commiting immoral acts. Just look at all the pederast catholics priests!

luvluv

I agree 99Percent, but the theist can look at the pederast and say his act is objectively wrong.

The atheist can only disgree with his taste. He could also disagree with his taste in clothing, but he can't give a coherent definition for why his distaste with regards to the pederasts behavior is any more forceful than his distaste for the pederast's clothing.

I see that as a distinctive moral advantage for theism.

Amen-Moses

Which theism? Or do you agree that women who cannot find 4 witnesses to give evidence that they are not guilty of adultery should be stoned to death?

Amen-Moses

99Percent

luvluv: I agree 99Percent, but the theist can look at the pederast and say his act is objectively wrong.

Sure it can, if morality is objectively derived through reason not faith.

The atheist can only disgree with his taste. He could also disagree with his taste in clothing, but he can't give a coherent definition for why his distaste with regards to the pederasts behavior is any more forceful than his distaste for the pederast's clothing.

You are confusing subjectivity with objectivity. I agree that socalled moral subjectivism is worthless but you are arguing with a moral objectivist who is an atheist.

I see that as a distinctive moral advantage for theism.

Nope, because theism must first persuade and indoctrinate that God in fact exists. People are born atheists, you know, its the default worldview.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

luvluv : You are right that an atheist could adopt any moral position he wanted, including the position that child molestation is perfectly fine. The theist is prevented from such privilidges. That's my point.

Intensity : In theory the theist has a moral system (we know however that in practice they do what they want, a priest can always repent after sodomising a boy - thanks to infinite forgiveness). But even that aside, the Euthyphro dilemma renders the theistic moral system (based on absolute rather than objective morality) very arbitrary. It is also an inferior moral system because its irrational (look at the OT) and is based on might-makes-right acceptance - duress.

luvluv : I agree 99Percent, but the theist can look at the pederast and say his act is objectively wrong.

Intensity : He can and he will be wrong. Because God's commandments are also subjective (to himself). So what theists have is an absolute moral system. Its authoritarian and inhumane nature makes it barbaric and immoral.

luvluv : The atheist can only disgree with his taste.

Intensity : Its a gross misrepresentation to say atheistic moral system is based on personal taste.

luvluv : He could also disagree with his taste in clothing, but he can't give a coherent definition for why his distaste with regards to the pederasts behavior is any more forceful than his distaste for the pederast's clothing.

Intensity : What has taste in clothing have to do with morality? Does the theistic moral system include statements that say "Dont wear Jeans"?

luvluv : I see that as a distinctive moral advantage for theism.

Intensity : Moral advanvantage because it is laid out for them so they don't need to think? Or moral advantage because they have a superior moral system compared to atheists?
What is your meaning of the word advantageous in this context? Is a moral system supposed to be advantageous? Morality is not supposed to give us any edge, just to enable us to live together peacefully and in an organised manner.
On what basis is it more advantageous?

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

SRB

First of all, atheism does not entail that there are no objective moral standards. Almost all forms of moral realism are compatible with atheism. For example, it may well be the case that moral sentences are statements about natural properties (such as statements about how an event will influence people's future happiness). It may well be the case that "abusing children is OK" is a false statement because abuse of children has adverse effects on their future happiness.

Now suppose moral realism is in fact false. What reasons do anti-realists have not to abuse children, if they wanted to do so? One reason relates to prudence. Even if such people are confident they can get away with it, there is always a chance they will be caught at a later date, which makes refraining from abusing a prudent course of action. Another reason is that even if a person initially wants to abuse children, the person knows that deep down he will probably feel miserable and guilty afterwards. That is a good reason for him not to act.

You say that as a theist you know that abusing children is wrong. How do you know that? What more reason do you have to believe such a thing than an atheist? Furthermore, even if theism *did* entail that abusing children is wrong and against God’s wishes, why not do it anyway? According to the Bible you can still go to Heaven if you carry out dreadful crimes in your lifetime, so why not indulge yourself for now? Furthermore, if theism is true, the suffering in the world is necessary to bring about some greater good. So if you cause a child to suffer, the suffering you cause is necessary to bring about that greater good, and hence is overall a good thing, not a bad thing.

My conclusion is that theists have no more reason than atheists to think that abusing children is objectively wrong, and can offer no good reasons not to abuse children that atheists cannot just as well offer. Furthermore, theists have the severe skeptical problem arising from their belief that that every instance of suffering in the world is necessary to bring about some greater good. If that were true then it would be perfectly OK and commendable to permit any amount of suffering you like, since all suffering in the world would be absolutely necessary to bring about some greater good, a good that outweighs the suffering we see.

SRB

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: SRB ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

luvluv: The question was rhetorical, by the way, I was just saying if there are no objective moral standards then why shouldn't a person who was so inclined not abuse a child if they a) found it pleasurable and b) thought they could get away with it?

Intensity : If getting away after gratifying an act is all that a person wants, then it would be fine to have sex with a child (by "abuse a child", I assume you meant have sex with a child - and it doesn't necessarily result to "abuse") - but one must think of the wider application of the act (as a rational being) and the reciprocity of the act vis-a-vis the child.

The Utilitarian value of the act (when applied universally), would deem it immoral . Kants utilitarianism is a teleological view that holds that an act is moral if it maximizes good consequences and minimizes evil consequences for the greatest number of people. That is, if the act is applied universally, it should increase happiness (long-term, lasting satisfaction of one's desires - the sexual desire is but one among many, inter twined desires).
But it will not since most people will be unhappy if their children are used sexually (including the person in question).
Whether or not people have a rational basis for feeling unhappy when their children are used sexually is another matter.
So, much as the person might satisfy his immediate sexual desire, the use of a child towards that end is an inferior act because it will thwart its own purpose when applied universally.

Kant says "Act in conformity with that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law"

Also luvluv, Catholic priests have been known to abuse children sexually, in spite of the absolute morals they subscribe to. That should tell you something about theistic morality.

SRB: Now suppose moral realism is in fact false. What reasons do anti-realists have not to abuse children, if they wanted to do so? One reason relates to prudence. Even if such people are confident they can get away with it, there is always a chance they will be caught at a later date, which makes refraining from abusing a prudent course of action.

Intensity : I think its misleading to make morality seem as a matter of survival. Our survival as individuals should not be the basis of our morality. It would make it moral to rub our fingerprints off a murder weapon and immoral to leave them. So the threat of being caught should not be a guiding principle in making decisions.
You have made the decision non-moral because you have based it on hypothetical imperatives (Dont do it because if you do it, you will be caught) as opposed to basing it on categorical imperatives (don't use a child sexually because it will bring more unhappiness than happiness).

SBR: Another reason is that even if a person initially wants to abuse children, the person knows that deep down he will probably feel miserable and guilty afterwards. That is a good reason for him not to act.

Intensity : This is totally subjective and it would make it moral for someone to rape a child if they dont experience guilt afterwards.

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>