Metacrock

</strong>


Nope! Because meaning is construed from the indiviudal and has no metaphysical significance in a materialist framework, but with God meaning does have metaphysical significance. Christian moral axioms are more binding because there is a thinking conscious judge who is the higherst level of authority and that jude judges according to his own character, which is the basic model for the creation of the universe and of man.

Those reasons have no metaphysical significance. If our feelings of empathy are a reason, then those who have no empathy can be justified in whatever they do. But if there is a universal judge who is the highest authority then axioms are binding. Golden rule is meaningless without that.

That's just teleological ethics which has no support at all anywhere. IT's strictly outcome based and could be used to justify anything.


Because God puts in a conscious top down judgement system at the top of the metaphysical hierarchy. Materilst reasons are all relative and shift with the shifting sands of history.


IOW, the development of a moral system does not require the existence of any god;

IT does if you want it to be durable.


and the existence of a god does not make a moral system binding.

O it certainly does! It means that you exist for a reason and that the thing that decides that reason says so! that makes it so!

Plump-DJ

A person called Vork was heard to scream..

Well why stop there? I'd like him to objectively define the method and way in which he objectively defines the word "objective". Ad infinitum.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that morals can or could be grounded in some objectively defined principle? (logic or reason perhaps) And if we cannot do this what then do you see as the logical conclusion of this?

HRG

That's according to your metaphysical framework. Mine is idifferent; according to it, every sentient being can define meaning. You may not judge mine from the PoV of yours no more than you can judge non-Euclidean geometry from the PoV of Euclidean geometry
That the creator of the universe is the highest level of moral authority is an additional axiom which you need for supporting your moral system. I see no reason why I should accept it.
And where does it follow that this individual character should be binding on us ?
Perhaps according to Metacrockian metaphysics, but there is non-Metacrockian metaphysics as well. Who are you to tell the rest of the world what is significant and what is not ?
According to my metaphysics, the fact that the overwhelming majority of humans feel empathy is significant.
That's a tautology; but it does not follow from the existence of a creator, but has to be introduced as an additional axiom
How can a definite moral command be meaningless ? The fact that humans have talked about it gives it meaning.

[/quote]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because cooperation benefits both of us, and by caring for A, I increase my chance of cooperating with A (see Robert Axelrod's work)
etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's just teleological ethics which has no support at all anywhere. IT's strictly outcome based
[/quote]
And what's wrong with that, outside of Metacrockian metaphysics ?
No. It could not justify killing each other. However, theist morality can be used for (almost) everything: just pick the right god. Huitzilopochtli will tell you that it is quite right to sacrifice humans to him.

That would be his judgment system. Why should we be bound by it ?
What is "shifting" about the Golden Rule, Kant's imperative or Rawls' Veil ?

And please don't tell me that theist ethics have not been shifting over time.

&lt;snip&gt;
[quote]
-------------------------------------------------

and the existence of a god does not make a moral system binding.
That would be the personal reason of the creator.
Translation: "I have the bigger guns, thus what I say is right".

Assume that your parents had you because they wanted an M.D. in the family; this would then be the reason for your existence. Does this imply that you are morally bound to go to medical school ?

Metacrock, you are not the first one who tried to derive an "ought" from an "is". No one has succeeded.

Regards,
HRG.

The Lost Number

No, I was not "comparing each system to a hypothetical "best"", I was in fact demonstrating two different systems that were not better or worse when compared with the other - they were just different. Again, look at the first example:
in most industrialized countries today, it would be wrong to support organizations of untrained vigalantes that "enforce" the law instead of qualified law enforcement personnel. The former group would clearly be highly unreliable and dangerous. The latter would be far better. But was this always so? No. In the past, in frontier days, there was little to no "law". People had to rely mostly on themselves and other untrained civilians for it. At that time, support of vigalante organizations was certainly the right thing to do, as without them, total anarchy would have ensued.

These types of cultures have their own benefits and detriments - I wasn't saying one was "better" than the other, but instead I simply explained how morality changes.

Morality is sort of one big game of "situation ethnics", the situation being the population group/s which are considerably impacted by whatever morals are in question. Society/ies change over time, and the morals change with them. Further, some take longer to catch up with the change of pace than others, and some don't want to at all. Thus we have our present world, with many different societal settings all occuring at one time, and a number of different morality systems to suit them i.e. relative morality systems.


And yes, unfortunately the entire world overall is probably not ready enough to embrace the fact that the personal theist's God does not exist, simply because most people in the world are stupid, since truly intelligent people realize just how much life sucks and therefore find bringing themselves to participate in it to be a heavy burden. So, yes, morality could easily decline significantly in some cultures if the belief in God were suddenly, entirely abandoned everywhere in the world (However, atheism slowly spreads among more intelligent, civilized countries, usually with the most intelligent members of society, and is very difficult to convert people to, so, fortunately, it isn't immoral, never has been and probably never will be).
Oh, so you just don't believe atheists can logically justify acting morally. And you believe that is fundamentalyy different from "atheists are immoral or too prone to immorality" because...? If some baseball team owner is interviewing a potential new player, and, concerning the rules of the game, says: "I don't think a person like you can logically justify playing this game without cheating", would that not clearly imply he is skeptical of that person's honesty?

I mean really, did you think you could just slip out of the issue by saying "they can't logically justify it"? Please. Every theist I've ever seen who talked about atheist morality--and I've seen plenty of them--ALWAYS used it to slander atheists as immoral. Don't humiliate yourself further with these silly denials.
How is it "not true"? The only reason the theist offers as justification for morality is that it comes from "him", the big boss, the father, the man upstairs, the big cheese, God himself. He knows everything and can do anything. His all knowing, all powerful, I-Could-Do-Anything-I-Want-To-You-Pathetic-Mortals Self is going to be quite unhappy if anyone acts immoral. I guess we'd better not piss him off...or else. He does have all that infinite authority and all.

That is the theist argument for morality. It's just a fear of punishment for immorality. "Hurt people, and God is gonna hurt you. You don't want to get hurt, which means you can't hurt other people". There is no actual desire for caring, helping or tolerance, but rather just rule following--in care only of one's self--that happens to be good for others.

I agree with Anunnaki. You have some serious mental problems if you can't justify caring for someone out of anything other than fearing being punished for not doing so.

I act morally because to not do so is wrong. I have been hurt. I know what pain is, and I don't want it inflicted on me. When it happens, I feel it's wrong. If it's wrong when done against me, then it would also be so when done against others. We all have a concept of what pain is, and we all feel it's wrong when unfairly done to us, which makes it wrong to do to others. The unjustified causing of pain against others is therefore wrong.

Tercel

Can we get this straight once and for all? I am NOT saying atheists are immoral.

I am saying athiests are INCONSISTENT. I am arguing that athiests DO act morally. They ARE moral. But that they cannot logically justify this. Which makes their position inconsistent.

My argument only works if we can agree as a premise that athiests DO act morally. So why anyone would accuse me of suggesting the opposite is absolutely beyond me. In my argument I'm assuming the very opposite of the position you accuse me of holding is true.

You say "Every theist I've ever seen who talked about atheist morality--and I've seen plenty of them--ALWAYS used it to slander atheists as immoral."
I have to question your judgement on this issue since you have put me into this category when I am arguing for the opposite thing.

Most athiests in the Western world have been brought up in society which has had hundreds of years of Christian influence in its moral structuring. In rejecting Christianity, they don't realise that they have rejected the philosophical foundations that their moral systemes are built on. After rejecting Christianity they nevertheless keep their ideas of morality and promote things such as Humanism etc without realising the inconsistency of such a position.
Much of that is a generalisation and I accept that it does not apply to every atheist here (so please don't winge at me if it doesn't apply to you)

Tercel

Ironic you should mention that, since in my personal observation the non-Christian Chinese and other asian immigrants I have met in my country are in general noticeably less moral than the average person.
But that is irrelevant as I am not really interested in how they act, only on whether they can logically justify their actions.
Since I am not particularly familar with Confusian and Buddhist etc beliefs, perhaps you would like to explain how their moral actions are logically justified?

Your prejudices are noted...

Philosoft

<strong>Tercel spake thusly:

Ironic you should mention that, since in my personal observation the non-Christian Chinese and other asian immigrants I have met in my country are in general noticeably less moral than the average person.</strong>

Surely you must see the Christian bias pouring out of this statement?

Are they less moral or merely differently moral?

Wizardry

We can't, eh? How's this:

Sounds like a pretty good reason to be moral to me. Who doesn't want to live in a stable society? I know I do, and so do most of the people I know. In fact, I'll venture a guess that you also see the benefits of living in a stable society, Tercel.

Have I satisfactorily justified my moral behavior?

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: Wizardry ]</p>

The Lost Number

Tercel:

I am curious as to whether or not point-dodging is a prominent feature of your personality. Afterall, save for this last one, you ignored all the others in my last post, and performed similarly in the one before that. Should you wish to have some honesty and cease these underhanded tactics, I'd appreciate it.

For you to accuse atheists of being unable to logically justify acting morally is--in addition to being absurd, closed-minded and bigoted in the highest degree--strong enough an implication of their being truly immoral to go hand in hand with flat out stating it. If a person wants to join a baseball team, and is told that "there is no logical reason for him to not break the rules cheat - it is inconsistent with the type of person he is", then that is a strong implication of him being untrustworthy. You could play this scenario out in many different areas of life where people are expected to follow certain rules - if one says flat out that these people have "no logical reason" to do so and that it would be "inconsistent" with whatever personality trait they have, then it is an accusation of being a rule breaker or too dangerously prone to breaking rules.

Thus when you start in with this foolishness about how atheists cannot justify being moral, that there is no logical reason for them to be moral, and that acting morally is inconsistent with atheism, you are essentially saying atheists are either immoral or too likely to make immoral decision. You simply refrain from coming right out and saying it. No, you won't do that - instead, you just drop a ton of hints.

As far as I or any other rational person is concerned, they are basically the same thing.
Lol! Are you even half way serious?

First off, moral things like not committing acts of burglarly, theft, assault, murder, etc. on one's fellow citizens are present in virtually every society. Christianity had no say so in the founding of such principles.

Second, Western society prospered by rejecting Christianity. Science, free speech, freedom of thought, etc. - all were steadfastly abolished when Christianity held absolute power, and Christians fought tooth and nail to keep things that way (many still do).

Christianity was responsible for wars, inquisitions, witch burnings and other religious atrocities. Christians spent hundreds of years with little objection to genocide, slavery, child abuse & spousal abuse, imperialism, etc.

Christianity has had very little to do with the greatness of western civilization, though it had a lot to do with supressing and attempting to destroy it.
Christianity has not the slightest claim to some uniquely superior morality in the first place, and neither is morality inconsistent with atheism. You claim it is but have yet to effectively explain why this is so.
Actually it was a load of false propaganda against atheists, so, being completely untrue, it cannot apply to anyone.

Tercel

Depends on your point of view. From my point of view, which is the only one I am qualified to give: They are less moral.