atheistic morality

[siegfriedandroy]

Andy. Appreciate your response. That is good that you realize 9/11 was truly evil. I agree.

But you are just plain wrong to say that 9/11 is wrong 'with or without God'. The last sentence of your last post demonstrates this. You say that many Muslims believe it was great. So who is right? Us or them? If there is no absolute standard, then neither claim is better than the other, as the great sklansky can affirm. In fact, the very terms would be without any real meaning. (I believe some of the above responses state that even with God, there is still no standard. I have not yet responded to that argument. That one seems a bit tougher to refute. Intuitively, though, it seems wrong to me. But I need to better organize my thoughts on that one.)

I think the fact that you are so adamant to condemn 9/11 as truly wrong- is a testament to the reality of an absolute good and an absolute evil. Deep inside, Andy, you KNOW that what happened on 9/11 was an atrocious evil. I think most of the posters above would agree if they were truly honest with themselves, no matter how clever a formulation they come up with to explain it away as meaningless and not actually wrong (but only wrong in some linguistic way). I believe it's truly evil to believe that 9/11 is not truly evil, if that makes any sense. These people deny what is obvious to a young child (and also to Andy Fox!)- that some things are truly right, and others are truly wrong.

[siegfriedandroy]

I agree. That is what atheists argue- the community determines the standard. My point, though, is that the community cannot 'determine' absolute truth. If Nazi Germany declares that killing jews is wrong, well then killing jews is wrong. that is the community standard. my contention, which i believe to be consistent with Christian theism, is that killing jews unjustly is always wrong in all places and all times, despite whatever a Nazi community in Germany 'determines'.

[ QUOTE ]
killing jews unjustly is always wrong

[/ QUOTE ]Doesn't "unjustly" bring another (complicating) layer to the question?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe it's truly evil to believe that 9/11 is not truly evil, if that makes any sense

[/ QUOTE ]

Not much sense. Sounds like you would advocate the same punishment for people who don't believe in true evil as for those responsible for 9/11. Surely not?

chez

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why is thinking in this fashion so foreign to people?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It isn't foreign. It just has nothing to do with morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has absolutely everything to do with morality, you just have a different definition of the word.

Mack

[siegfriedandroy]

yes [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[siegfriedandroy]

why does an atheist care about doing anything with a 'positive' expectation? Why do anything except what is best for yourself? Shouldn't you be completely selfish, unless somehow helping others somehow benefits yourself (in which case it is still selfish)!?

Why do some atheists believe in utilitarianism? What does it mean- something about doing whatever is most efficient in bringing happiness to the most people possible, right? Why do anything to help others? Why not a philosophy that advocates killing as many possible, and bringing as much pain as possible to all? Why the atheist fixation on 'happiness', whatever that is?

Why value life at all? Why not kill yourself? Why anything? It is late, and im on a 25000 bet downswing, im sorry!

[lastchance]

Man, you really need to read up on the Prisoner's Dilemma.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

Sorry about that.

I mean insect and human have zero effect on what happens to our known (or unknown) universe, but yet both can live a meaningful life by their own standards.


[/ QUOTE ]

Number one, that's patently false. Just look outside your window. Number two, so what?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'll agree that under some essentially ridiculously constructed circumstances that it might be the least awful of all horrible options. Sure. So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes it pretty clear to me that there isn't absolute moral code.


[/ QUOTE ]

Finding a case in which killing large numbers of people certainly isn't evidence against it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "code"? Do you mean a list of unqualified behaviors, like "thou shalt not kill?" Clearly this is a deeply problematic way of creating a moral code. Clearly sometimes killing is the only good and right option (say, when killing one deranged person will save many more).

I don't think the best way to describe morality is with a "code" of increasingly qualified particular behaviors, but rather one which is described in general principles.

[ QUOTE ]

Also I agree that every christian soldier who kills is doing what the code says they shouldn't do.


[/ QUOTE ]

On that note I'm still waiting to hear about this God given absolute moral code that apparently exists.

[ QUOTE ]

Knowing what it is definitely isn't irrelevant.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is definitely irrelevant as to its existence.

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, like the pi digit, absolute moral code might exist, but we can't easily describe it.

And whether there is an absolute moral code or not, it's existence is irrelevant to us if we don't know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it isn't. Just as we can compute additional digits of pi through study, we can learn to understand how our behavior can approach the moral principles we put forth.

Some things are more obvious - you shouldn't kill someone for their sneakers because this causes net pain and suffering.

Some things are harder to discern what the consequences are: deciding when a war is just, for example. Human beings have to learn to better understand the consquences of their behaviors. To say this renders moral principles of causing the least net harm and most net good irrelevant because our knowledge or understanding may not be complete is an absurdity.

eastbay

[andyfox]

The community always determines standards. Christians, who are true believers, have adopted the Bible as their standard of morality. Since there are many passages in the Bible that seemingly contradict other passages, it's a flexible standard. People have claimed that living in poverty was following Biblical instructions; other people have claimed that killing the Indians was following the Bible.

The Holocaust was evil. There is nothing to keep atheists from seeing that. I agree with your contention that it was wrong and that similar actions will always be wrong. But I still don't understand why one needs to believe in god to ascertain this. If I went out and killed ten Jews tonight and was caught, I would be arrested and, if convicted, punished. (In fact, due to hate crime legislation, I would probably be punished more severely if it were determined that I killed them because they were Jewish.) We would have laws against murder with or without the Bible or absent a belief in god.