Grad Student Humanist

This is impossible because there is no one standard of morality that everyone agrees on, regardless of what the theists say.

I am not responsile for being a good role model for the Xtian kids down the street, for instance. I live my life as I see fit and that means I'm an atheist and a liberal. That makes me a horrible role model in the eyes of most Xtian parents.

Furthermore, there are plenty of things which adults have every right to do which children should never do, i.e. smoke, drink, gamble, have sex, etc. So an adult who chooses to go to Las Vegas every year and drink, gamble and pick up women is being a horrible role model for children, yet is doing nothing wrong.

Thus it is the responsibilty of the parents to expose their kids to role models which fit their moral standard, not my responsiblity to live my life in such a way so as to model behavior which I don't agree with.

Vandrare

Grad Student Humanist :notworthy

and sorry Alonzo, my mistake. wont happen again

:-D Anna

Alonzo Fyfe

This only shows that it is impossible for a person to be unanimously considered a good role model. It does not prove that it is impossible to actually be a good role model. But this would be true as well of the scientist making a claim about, say, whether dinosaurs were warm blooded in a room consisting of people who hold different opinions on the matter.

And it does not refute the argument that I gave in defense of my position. This defense being that the very concept of being a "poor role model" contains within it the idea that the person has done something that is wrong for some other reason.

The idea that a person can be a poor role model and at the same time be doing something against which no separate objection can be raised is incoherent.

Of course, I also object to the assumption that one morality is as good as any other, for reasons that I have stated in several other threads and in a long series of detailed arguments I have posted in this thread. It fails to recognize the clear linguisting distinction between being a good role model, and being believed to be a good role model -- and the fact that theories suggesting that the latter can in all cases be substituted for the former turns virtually every sentence written or spoken about such issues into nonsense.

Truly, I find the worship of this idea that anybody's moral ideas (including those of the racist, rapist, etc.) are just as valid as any others to be amazingly bizarre, particularly considering the clear problems with it. I believe that this mistaken position is inferred from the assumption that the only viable alternative is the even less plausible option that intrinsic values exist. But, in fact, both positions -- the "all positions are equally valid" and "there are intrinsic values" are both mistaken.

Any dispute one may have against these comments should be reserved for those threads already concerned with the existince of objective vs. subjective values. My arguments here do not depend on it.

Bad Kitty

I most emphatically disagree that "we all have a moral obligation to be good role models."

I don't have a "moral obligation" to do just about ANYTHING. If I wish to be a hermit and live my life alone in the Alaskan wilds making bizarre pinecone statues and inciting the squirrels to riot, that is my business and doesn't make me in the least bit "immoral". If I sell my statues on eBay and they become incredibly popular with the Japanese earning me millions of dollars, it isn't my "moral obligation" to give one red cent to anyone else (needy or otherwise), I can put half the money under my bed and spend the rest on squirrel food.

Why is it incumbent upon any of us to be "a good role model".

One can be considered a "poor role model" easily, particularly if engaged in a job in the public spotlight, and yet have done nothing "wrong". Of course, we can argue about what is considered "wrong". In order to make your argument, you can raise a "separate objection" against all sorts of things you don't like. But just because you don't like them doesn't make them wrong. So I'm going to equate "wrong" with "illegal", as that is not subjective.

So let's take the following:

Say you're a top scoring NBA player, and as such, much of the sports media focuses on your performance and your team becomes very popular. You are a GREAT player, and perform your job on the court wonderfully. But despite your popularity, you shun interviews, autographs, and fans. You give no money to charity and make no special "issue awareness" type commercials. You do not visit dying kids in the hospital or volunteer to read for the blind. You gamble alot, but well within your means. You have LOTS of hot girlfriends. You drink alot of alcohol when you party, but it doesn't ever interfere with your job. You unabashedly smoke cigarettes every chance you get. You wear fur every chance you get. You eat lots of meat.

Now, minus the "NBA star" part, I know lots of people just like the above. I don't consider them "immoral" in anyway. They lead busy, happy lives. Throw in the NBA star part, and I've no doubt this person would be suddenly considered a "poor role model" and yet his life is no different than many others, he just has more money to spend. Has he done something wrong?

In my opinion, he goes to work, works hard, and earns his money. What he does or does not do with it is his business. I don't believe he has any responsibilities to anyone else.

Michelle

Alonzo Fyfe

There is an important distinction between BEING a good role model and BEING CONSIDERED a good role model.

If I were asked whether a person has an obligation to BE CONSIDERED a good role model, I would agree with you. There is no such obligation. A society may adopt standards where the people it CONSIDERS a good role model may be the most attrocious of individuals. To be CONSIDERED a good role model in NAZI Germany is something that nobody, anywhere, ever had any obligation to be.

But, I checked, and the original question asked whether a person has an obligation to BE a good role model. And the answer to that is, 'yes'.

With each of the items you mentioned in your list of traits for the basketball player, the first relevant question is, "Does this make the person a poor role model in fact?" And this is the same question as "Is this person doing something against which a legitimate criticism can be made?" If the answer is "Yes", he is being a poor role model AND he is doing something that he ought not to be dong for other reasons. If the answer is "No." then he is not being a poor role model AND he is doing something against which no legitimate criticism can be raised.

fatherphil

just because you don't want to recognize your moral obligation does not mean it is impossible to adhere to one. look at the way the clergy hanlded their sex abuse problem. they could argue that they did what was morally right in their eyes and you would have no "moral" ground to stand on against their position because you have chosen to make morality so subjective.

so why even use the word moral?

Vandrare

how is BEING a good role model anything other than being CONSIDERED a good role model within a certain society or group? is there anyway we can really *objectively* (which of course will raise the whole issue of the ability for something moral to be objective) state what BEING a good role model is?

Vandrare

hehe i like it!!!

but at least your giving food to the squirrels which is kind of good ?!

Alonzo Fyfe

As you correctly reported, this is a subject for another thread. For example:

Aesthetic Morals

The Answer: Objective/Subjective Morals

and

Ethics Without God, A Personal Journey

I will answer this the same way here as I have answered it elsewhere: all value consists of relationships between states of affairs and desires. However, a person can have false beliefs about the relationships that exist between states of affairs and desires. Thus, the relationship that one believes to exist (considers to be the case) and the relationships that exist in fact, may differ.

There is no mystery about such relationships. There is no supernatural 'good' assumed or required. There is just gold old fashioned relationships between states of affairs (character traits, in this case) and desires, and beliefs about them, and recognition of the fact that there are more desires exist in the universe than those of the agent making the claim.

There is no more mystery about debates over which character traits are 'good for us' as there is about whether exercise, or vitamins, or enough sleep is 'good for you or me'.

Bad Kitty

Alonzo, you still haven't said WHY a person has an obligation (sometimes you use "moral" here, sometimes not) to be a good role model.

What does "in fact" mean?

What does "legitimate" mean? Legitimate to me? To us? To the Russians? To God?

You have provided no argument that anyone has a moral obligation to BE a good role model, other than you saying so.