DMB

luvluv: If in your opinion an atheist has no right to morality, then no more does a xian, whose only "leg to stand on" is a misguided belief in a fictional entity. Such belief justifies nothing. How can it be relevant to anyone else who doesn't share it, whether atheist or believer in something else?

At least the Universal Declaration is an attempt to find a basic set of values that are independent of particular bleief.

Pomp

DMB,

At least the Universal Declaration is an attempt to find a basic set of values that are independent of particular bleief.

I think the problem, though, is that they are not independant of particular beliefs. They presuppose a modern, liberal, Western view of humans and human rights. The tribe being discussed in this thread obviously holds beleifs that do not jibe with the UDoHR, and so do, for example, fundamentalist Muslims and Xians, hardline Communists, strict Libertarians, etc.

galiel

That is not entirely true, and presupposes that all value systems are equally valid merely by virtue of being posited and/or followed.

The IDHR is based on MODERN principles based on scientific advances in understanding of humanity and our relationship to nature, progress in the organization of large-scale, stable, non-destructive societies, and the study of history.

Arguing that there can be no universal set of civil principles is one philosophical position, but by no means the only one. And assuming that any set of principles must only be appropriate for certain cultures and not other or that certain rights are owed members of certain societies but not others, are not a position shared by all. For one example, I refer you to John Rawls, particularly in the more recent of his two important books, Political Liberalism (the previous one being A Theory of Justice.) In PL, Rawls sets out to create a basic rule-set for any society--even including members who would not ordinarily seem compatible in a single society, such as theocrats and secular democrats, or libertarians and authoritarians. I do not wish to argue the merits of his particular attempted solution--more pro and con Rawls commentary has been written in the past 20 years than almost anything else to do with political philosophy--I merely wish to point out that various people believe it is possible to create a universal set of social principles that will work for everyone.

[This is a particular interest and ongoing pursuit of mine, and I will perhaps start a separate thread (or nine ) on the topic of discovering basic laws or principles to govern a new, better form of political organization.]

Arrowman

Interesting discussion. I'd just like to pick up a couple of points:

Well put, Glory. In particular, I believe it is possible to condemn some of the practices of a particular culture as primitive and barbaric, and support the outlawing of those practices, while at the same time embracing the people of that culture and allowing them to retain their identity and humanity. And I do not have a problem with making a judgement on what I consider to be unacceptable practice.

The story which started this thread was a prime example of the stupidity and, ultimately, the inhumanity, which can result from "culture worship".

The difference between the Christian and the atheist is that the Christian has invented a mythical lawgiver to justify their ethical code. Only trouble for the Christian is that their mythical book does not ban what we nowadays call statutory rape; in fact, it can be argued that it is condoned.

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

Glory

Wrong! There is nothing in your post that indicates that you were being sarcastic or ironic and that I should not take your words at face value. You would do well to remember that one cannot see your facial expression or hear the tone of your voice in this nmedium. I am relieved to know you don't actually feel that way.



I never claimed to believe in the value of human beings. In fact, I specifically stated that they do not have any intrinsic value.



See above.



This is the only intelligent thing you have yet said.



It is an exercise in futillity to attempt to justify one's actions to someone who bases their idea of justice on a being who punishes his creations for his mistakes. You may need to believe that persons are more important than they are in order to bring yourself to behave morally. I don't find moral behaviour to be such a challenge.

What I am getting from your argument is that atheists are hippocrits for being decent people and expressing moral outrage because they deny God. That without God to lead us, we have no choice but to follow our base desires and act only in selfinterest. The inverse of this is that you behave decently only because you fear God's punishment. That you can't figure out on your own what's right and what's wrong and that without the guidance of the Bible you'd act the way you are naturally inclined to. I shudder to imagine what your natural inclinations might be based on your stated theories.



Behaving morally is always in one's self interest. I am not surprised you don't know that since you seem to have the morals of a toddler with his hand in the cookie jar. You see, by being good, we make it possible for others to want to associate with us. We avoid feeling guilty. We allow ourselves to have honest realtionships and to trust others. We get to feel good about our selves and be proud of what we have done. We don't have to keep secrets.

If the only thing keeping you from becoming a complete sociopath is your belief in God and fear of his wrath, then stay with that by all means. Those of us who can think for ourselves and have a modicum of self control will continue this adult conversation.

Glory

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

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

Amen-Moses

Where? Please be specific.

Then show me where in the Bible it says that a man may not bed his intended wife?

Even the OT say's to love your neighbour, of course it also includes an order from Moses to go kill neighbours!

Amen-Moses

Primal

Luvluv:

That assumes 2 things 1) The ultimate basis for morality is culture. 2) That another ultimate basis lying outside of culture is that one culture cannot interfere with another. 1 and 2 are clearly contradictory, it doesn't take a theist to see that. Number 1 is also very questionable.

I for example think morals stem from being a certain type or quality of preference, and this is activated when I recieve certain bits of data i.e. giril was raped. And yes she was raped(btw Jason), you don't have to verbatim say "have sex or else" to rape. That's like saying a slave that never objects is no slave at all. Sometimes objecting gets you into even worse trouble.

This is also a matter of degree i.e. your sleave shirt preference argument. I think stealing a candy bar is immoral for example, I'd prefer people did not do that. Does that mean I put stealing a candy bar on level with rape or murder?

No more then it means that my dislike of long sleeve shirts demands I treat people that where such shirts in the same manner as I do a rapist.


Surely this is a joke? On what basis do you draw these stereotypes or establish that once one is an atheist, one has no rights to moral condemnation?

Wouldn't that demand an ethical code in itself?

Proof here would come from analyzing societies, evolution, consequences and such.

It would also come from an apeal to your own emotional mechanisms or, given the premises, any sort of virtue principles violated or utiltarian principles violated. The emotional route would involve the same manner with which I would prove any other emotions or sensations existed.

All proof requires a given set of premises, moral proofs hence require moral premises. There is nothing in atheism that denies moral premises.

That's circular reasoning there.

In any case I as an atheist can think of reasons; I feel it is immoral. The practice would cause strife if widespread. I can empathize with the girl and empathy is a motivating force. What causes an organism to act at all? Motivations. And if motivations are of a nature that we call morals, what then? Why should we not, as orgianisms act on such motivations? What removes these motivations from atheists?

I see morality as having a biological origins which can me hampered or promoted by enviroment in many ways.

However lets take theism and put it under the test, on what basis does God make His moral statements? To me this seems like a matter of God's preference, but wait! If God can said to have moral laws via preference then why can't man?

Either morality can be based on preference or it cannot. If it cannot you must see God's laws as amoral. If they can, then you must admit that an secularist can have morality.

Primal

I do not know if their practices are wholly independent of culture, though I can say they may be partially. As they may be based on underlying biological prefences and how similiar consequences affect such preferences. These rights may merely be seen as one's that allow overall biological drives to flourish.

Likewise not all cultures are created equal given there are indeed other standards which may over-rule culture, such as biology,rationality and stronger cultural practices. Justice for example over-rules the value of empathy in our culture when a criminal is locked up. Perhaps one can then show that if other cultures applied their moral premises more consistently they would get the UN Declaration of rights, or perhaps if it was shown that certain superstitions underlying a culturalact were false, that it would be better to jettison the act.

luvluv

Old Pompous Bastard :

This is, in my opinion, the hole in your entire theory of morality. We know from common experience that it is simply not true that the only thing that differentiates a moral feeling from another feeling of anger or disappointment is intensity. That's just not true.

Moral feelings are QUALITATIVELY different from other feelings of disappointment or anger. I have a totally different feeling if I'm running in the woods and trip over a tree branch and break my leg, than I would if I were running and someone deliberately tripped me and broke my leg.

In the first case, I would be perhaps upset and a little angry, though I would realize I really don't have a right to be.

In the second case I would be upset and very angry and I would definitely have a right to be.

But why? If you are correct, the only relevant fact is that my leg is broken, and it should be immaterial whether the agent that broke my leg was an unconcious piece of wood or a concious, willing human being. My leg is broken whether the act was accidental and non-conscious or whether it was consicous and on purpose.

Can you define for me the MECHANISM that makes you feel of the person "this act was wrong" and yet will not apply the same feeling to the tree branch?

Further, the feeling "this is unfortunate" is a qualitatively different feeling from "this is wrong".

Further, you can feel the same moral feeling "this is wrong" about an act that is fortunate for you. Let's say you found someone's wallet and took all the money out of it before you turned it back in. You would feel about this act: "this was wrong" even though it was not something that was upsetting to you.

Moral feelings of guilt and indignation are not differentiated from other feelings simply by their intensity any more than feeling cold and feeling inertia are. They are qualitatively different feelings.

luvluv

DMB:

Exactly. But if one is justified, then so is the other, yes?

If an atheist can believe in a morality he can't prove then I can believe in a God I can't prove.

Glory:

Basically.

If I'm some sort of low brow moron for believing in God because I can't prove His existence, then you are also a low brow moron for believing that ANY person (your parents, your spouse, your children) are any more intrinsically valuable then the snot on somebody's shirt sleeve, because you can't prove that either.

Now you may say that a person can be justified in believing something he cannot prove, and I would agree with you.

Beyond that, the atheist is absolutely being hypocritical for adhering to any moral standard the basis of which HE HAS NO PROOF OF. Self-interest is the only adequate reason for morality, but in the case of this gentleman in Australia, his actions are totally within his interests, so if the atheist wants to condemn him for it he has to provide a reason WHY.

If "I just do" is a reasonable reason for feeling moral indignation (as Pomp seems to think it is), then "I just do" is a reasonable reason for believing in God. So if you affirm one and deny the other... you sir/maddame are a hypocrite.

If you are justified in believing in any sort of moral system beyond naked self-interest, then I am justified in believing in God. From an epistemic standpoint they are IDENTICAL.

Arrowman:

I don't remember inventing anything. We believe one exists. The term "invented" is very loaded and misleading: invented implies that even the founders knew Christianity to be false and we have no way to know if that is the case. I realize your terminology is meant only to amplify your case beyond it's warrant for purposes of discussion, but in this case it might lead to an unfortunate conclusion. God might not exist, but even the first man to mention it as a concept might not have believed he was inventing it, but was merely reporting it.


a) I'd like to see you make that argument.

b) I don't see a problem with people getting married at an earlier age than we are used to in America, so long as both partners are willing. Some cultures have the social and economic structure that makes these things work. If, in a given culture, the man and the woman are both capable of independant living at age 15, then let them be married for all I care. I don't really see a moral issue involved in sheer age. It is unwise in our own culture because given our differentiated economy most 15 year olds have no chance of being self-sufficient. I believe the Bible is wise in not setting any age for marriage.

By the way, women being wed off by sixteen or so has pretty much been more the rule than the exception even in the west up until the Industrial Revolution. Once a boy could plow and a girl could cook they were pretty much ready to go.

Amen-Moses:

The Good Samaritan parable for starters.

Also, try Matthew 25, in which Jesus specifically indentifies himself with everyone in need and tells His disciples that if they fail to help the needy he will consider them to have failed to help Himself.

That oughta get you started off.

Well, I think that was covered in "avoid fornication", no? If there was no exception given it should be inferred that none applies.

No, only a epistomelogical framework. When I said right, I meant you have no more rational basis for morality than I have for belief in God.

Uh-huh. Couldn't I also justify a belief in God by analyzing societies, evolution (which produced God belief), consequences, and emotional mechanisms?

Again, folks, if God is a ridiculous concept, so is the worth of persons. You can't have it both ways.

The man in question obviously does not feel it is immoral and does not empathize with the girl. What makes you right and him wrong? Why, other than brute force applied on your part, should he agree with you and not with himself?