Gurdur

Heya, heya, I'm not supposed to be here - I'm taking a break from tiling - and I got a couple of threads to attend to here first before dealing with other matters, but I'll do this anyway, since I think much of the criticism of Douglas Bender's post here in this thread is quite wrong.

So far so good; Douglas is actually correct here.
However, it should be noted that while metaphysical naturalism - MN - (and atheist MN)strongly imply morality is "subjective", it does not actually necessitate it.
See evolutionary psychology for example for statistical predicators of moral behaviour - hinting at objectively measurable base elements, which however still do not form a genuine objective morality.

Now there are two things wrong with this;

• Atheism and MN are not identical.
  
  You can be an atheist without being an MNist;
  You can be an MNist and still not be an atheist.
  .
• Although morality may be subjective, doesn't necessitate it being relative.
  However, this one's a long argument, so I might pick it up later.
  For example; I am a atheist, and moral subjectivist, but I am not a moral relativist.

Bender is again correct, but not for the reasons he stated - mainly.
Since atheism is not a moral stance, it has no genuine moral derivatives.
Therefore it can be said "that atheism implies that humans are no better than bacteria".

Guess why if you want some satisfactory ethics, you need something more than and additional to atheism -- something like humanism, for example.

No, sorry, it can't imply it, it can only allow it.

Precisely.
You are mixing up atheism and morality.
Confusion / Conflation alert.

Actually, he's right there, more or less, though one could quibble nastily on the theology side.

Anyway, I hope that's of some help.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Gurdur

Once more unto the breach....

This is additional to my post above.

Nope, this is all wrong.
"higher than", "superior" is already a moral judgment; in the absence of objective morality, you cannot make such an unsupported assertion as though it was objectively true --- it is only an unsupported premise / judgment of yours.

Like what ?

Nope, Douglas didn't necessarily refute himself at all; there are some quite sophisticated theologies out there for whom this is very much a non-problem.


Can't see how; care to expand ?


This is of course only a redirection; possibly a justifiable redirection, but only a redirection.

Before telling Douglas his argument sucks, it may well be a wise idea to clean up some of the conflations and contradictions in the retorts first.

In A Break From Tiling,
Gurdur

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

excreationist

Ok... those things are the possibilities... having humans as or less important than bacteria is just a possibility but not a full blown implication of atheism. So I guess DJ Bender's statement is not possibly misleading, it is completely false.

But earlier you said:
That is kind of confusing... perhaps you mean that in reality, it is possible for people to say that - though the act of saying something doesn't make it true. That's pretty tricky...

Individual atheists would need to have *some* kind of morality though... I am using the term "morality" very loosely... I would say that even <a href="http://www.ccp.uchicago.edu/grad/Joseph_Craig/kohlberg.htm#stage1" target="_blank">Kohlberg's first stage</a> is a kind of morality. I think of morality as just a set of values. Stage 1 would probably apply to animals I guess. I feel like my idea of "morality" is getting a bit too loose...

I guess he's probably right although maybe some atheists like Ayn Rand(?) would disagree.

Samhain

Gurdur:

Is there any evidence suggesting that bacteria has even the capacity for rational thought or can even comprehend "right" and "wrong"? I'd say there is no evidence suggesting such, and probably evidence that would be posed against such a possibility. Therefore, our capacity for these things places us at a greater standpoint for them, does it not?

Well, I suppose it would depend upon ethics. Can we state that there is any act that is objectively wrong (wrong to all people, in all places, at all times)?

Care to elaborate on how? If morality is dependent on a conscious entity, then how can we assert that it still maintains objectivity?

Any set of laws that holds that mitigating circumstances play a role in determining the guilt or innocence of person. If a person comes at me with a gun, threatening to shoot me, they fire shots, but I shoot them and kill them first, am I guilty of murder?

*Nods* I explained it in the thread in RRP when Douglas confronted me with that.

Damn, Gurdur, are you retiling your whole house or what? You've been out there for like 3 days.

Gurdur

Do they ? Does anyone ?
I fail to see why.
I remind you: sociopathy. nihilism. solipsism.

Don't get me wrong; I like and propagate certain ethics; but they're not an immutable necessity (unfortunately).

Well, hell, pardon me if I get rude, but I couldn't care less; I was forced by my uni program into studying philosophy as one subject, and one of the things I learnt there is that Ayn Rand is simply not taken seriously by real philosphers - or by most theologians. And for good reasons.

Anyway, I do hope my contributions helped here; to repeat, your main problem was getting tripped up by Douglas on your own confusion between morality and atheism - the two have nothing to do with each other.

Gurdur

No, what I meant was:

Atheism loosely implies there is no such thing as objective morality (though does not necessitate it).

There it could be said that atheism in the main implies that you cannot make an objective statement of moral worth between bacteria and humans.

However, atheism allows different and contradictory statements.

Gurdur

ROFL, ROFL, yes, I stand convicted.
However, under the term "tiling" I also include:
mending the walls
wallpapering
painting
mending the electricity wires
mending the plumbing
sanding and painting the doors and windows

plus a plumber's been installing a full new bathroom.

Since (as you may know already) I am at heart an extremely lazy person, I just use the term "tiling".

This is exactly the point where excreationist was being tripped up nastily by Douglas Bender.

When you say a "greater standpoint", you are making a judgment of worth, a moral judgment.

The mere fact that you can make a moral judgment does not make you automatically morally superior to a bacterium, which cannot; a bacterium could reply to you that you are incapable of reproduction by fission, and are therefore inferior. (see *)

Believe me, I wish we could; but we can't.

Urggle, urrgglle, theology isn't really my thingy.
However let me try:
there is a school known as "process theology", under which it might be postulated that morality grows along with God (God being subject to time as we are, albeit less devastatingly).

Another theological approach would be to say God stands outside the Universe and time (in a way incomprehensible to us; hey, don't blame me, this isn't my thingy, I'm just trying to answer your question) and that morality then flows from God so that it is objective to us but not to God.

If you're really interested in this, I can ask a theologian.

With all respect, I don't yet see how this answers my question as yet; possibly my brain is rotting under the 35° Celsius weather here.
Please expand a bit more.
____________

(*) An interesting question is:

Are you morally suuperior to a severely retarded human who is incapable of genuine moral thought ?

I would argue that on one level you are, and on another level you are not at all, but fully equal.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Samhain

Gurdur:

Ok, so the term "tiling" consists of building a house

I'll have to remember that the next time you say it.

I'm still a little fuzzy on this area, sorry, maybe I'm slow or something. We can possibly infer that bacteria does not and perhaps cannot make moral judgements (based upon what we know of bacteria, we can see this to be accurate, correct?). Now, from a moral standing alone, because a human being has the capability of establishing morals, even if they are subjective, we may not be morally "superior" (as to the bacteria, the question of morality is non-sensical), the fact that we have the capacity for establishing morality would suggest that while morality may not matter to bacteria, it does to us, and therefore, the comparison of bacteria and humans is non-sequitur. Or am I missing another point? I have a feeling that I haven't answered the point you're trying to relay, but we'll see. Maybe this concept is just to abstract for me

I'll take your word on it. If you know of any websites explaining this and making this a non-problem, I'd like to see them, if you have them handy that is. I see the point, but it still does create its own problems, no?

Ok, just to clarify that we're talking about the same thing, since I'm not sure myself. I'm trying to demonstate that moral subjectivity can be perceived even with "objective morals derived from 'God'". If we are to regard the Bible as true, and if we are to extract the "objective morality as derived by 'God'" from, oh, let's say the Ten Commandments, we can see that interpretation will play a large role in the objectivity of morality. "Thou shalt not kill" - seems pretty basic, but can it be demonstrated that it can be acceptable, regardless of the objective morality to kill? Is it possible for "God" to condone killing if there are mitigating circumstances? Does this portray an objective morality?

Yes and no, like you said, sort of, I guess

As I stated earlier, morality for those without the capacity to determine "right" or "wrong" is non-sensical, is it not? Therefore while we may not be "superior" we have the capacity and as condemned to that capacity as well, true?

excreationist

"humans are no better than bacteria" is a statement of moral worth though... so Douglas is saying "atheism implies that [a statement of moral worth]"