What you consider to be right and why?James195101 wrote:In Darwinian terms, there is no sure reason to do anything. In fact trying out variations is almost our Darwinian duty. Ethics are often culturally based and so ethics are experiments to see whose culture is the most 'fit'.
-- Updated June 2nd, 2012, 10:29 pm to add the following --
The only sure reason I can think of is that if you go too far away from what you consider to be right, you may go mad.
For an atheist, are there any sure reasons to be ethical?
-
- Posts: 126
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 4:20 pm
Re: For an atheist, are there any sure reasons to be ethical
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: April 18th, 2012, 10:47 am
Re: For an atheist, are there any sure reasons to be ethical
-
- Posts: 126
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 4:20 pm
Re: For an atheist, are there any sure reasons to be ethical
- James195101
- Posts: 141
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 6:48 am
Re: For an atheist, are there any sure reasons to be ethical
Determining what is right takes soul-searching, because each situation is different for each participant. Consider the situation of a lion killing a baby antelope. This is good and right and necessary for the lion, but the very same act is a disaster for the mother antelope (and the baby antelope). We have within us driving forces (mainly sub-conscious) which we ignore at our peril. It is these internal driving forces which we personally need to consult in order to determine what is right for us. This is where god comes in. The scenario is analogous to the scenario where indigenous australians used to teach their children creation stories. A story would typically have some dream-time people in a particular situation who would turn into a particular animal. If you go along with the story, you are better able to predict the behaviour of that animal - very useful when hunting it. Likewise you get benefits when you go along with the story of god.Leonid wrote:What you consider to be right and why?James195101 wrote:In Darwinian terms, there is no sure reason to do anything. In fact trying out variations is almost our Darwinian duty. Ethics are often culturally based and so ethics are experiments to see whose culture is the most 'fit'.
-- Updated June 2nd, 2012, 10:29 pm to add the following --
The only sure reason I can think of is that if you go too far away from what you consider to be right, you may go mad.
-
- Posts: 126
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 4:20 pm
Re: For an atheist, are there any sure reasons to be ethical
This is very intuitivistic approach to morality. In fact you claim that moral is whatever that you feel as moral. But different people feel differently and so the suicide bomber could as moral as you are. A denial of the objective nature of morality is an abnegation of morality altogether.Morality is a code of values which allows to make proper choices in order to sustain and to better life. Morality therefore presupposes volition and mind. Animals don't make volitional choices and concept of morality is inapplicable to them.
- James195101
- Posts: 141
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 6:48 am
Re: For an atheist, are there any sure reasons to be ethical
-
- Posts: 126
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 4:20 pm
Re: For an atheist, are there any sure reasons to be ethical
- James195101
- Posts: 141
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 6:48 am
Re: For an atheist, are there any sure reasons to be ethical
-
- Posts: 126
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 4:20 pm
Re: For an atheist, are there any sure reasons to be ethical
I'm not comfy with the fallacy of equivocation of man and beast. And this is nothing to do with God but everything with human versus animal nature. Humans are volitional, rational beings whose nature requires them to act on the conscious choice in order to sustain their life. Mind is their tool of survival, not teeth, wings or instincts. The operation of mind requires freedom from coercion. The concept of right to live designates freedom of action in the social context. Animals don't act on conscious choice, their modus operandi is mostly build-in mechanism and therefore concept of rights is inapplicable to them. Killing humans in any circumstances would mean an elimination of right to live for both killers and their victims. In such a situation no man could exist and act qua man, that is- a rational being. From the other hand man cannot exist as an animal, as an animal cannot exist by means of plant. The abnegation man's life as an objective standard of value means therefore an abnegation of man. That why cannibalism, human sacrifice are not sustainable for the long run and murder was considered to be a crime already in the times of Hammurabi.James195101 wrote:I see that you are comfy rearing killing and eating innocent lambs, but yet are squeamish about killing god's ultimate creation - wait for it - you (and probably reluctantly me). However killing humans is tricky in that it is not always needed or appropriate. It is usually only needed on a group scale when there is not enough to go around (either by population growth or by resource shrinkage). I don't like it either but I didn't set the rules. Whatever created us (and the other more lowly animals) set this up.
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: April 18th, 2012, 10:47 am
Re: For an atheist, are there any sure reasons to be ethical
Why do they need to be based on an "objective standard?" If a set of values appears to work, that is sufficient.
Now, one can argue, of course, that Mohammad Atta's values were as real to him as Hellenistic ones are to me, and so what? I don't deny that there are conflicting values, and the struggle is to see which ones prevail.
-
- Posts: 126
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 4:20 pm
Re: For an atheist, are there any sure reasons to be ethical
Why do they need to be based on an "objective standard?" If a set of values appears to work, that is sufficient.
We need an objective standard for 2 reasons. First-objective means pertains to reality and one cannot escape reality of human nature with impunity as he cannot escape the law of gravitation. Second, subjective or arbitrary standard of value eliminates morality altogether. Morality is a code of values that guides human choices. With the subjective or arbitrary standard no choices are needed or possible. For example if God is a standard of value, then everything goes as long as this alleged deity approves. The same applies to all other arbitrary standards-feelings, society, state, race, etc...By accepting arbitrary standards man becomes not immoral but amoral. However, the choice of arbitrary standard is an immoral evasion-man implicitly knows that his life is his standard of value. He learns from his own experience that whatever promotes his life is good, whatever hinders it is bad. No man could completely deny such a knowledge-the same Mohammad Ata would know very well how to fight for his very life in the court room.
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: April 18th, 2012, 10:47 am
Re: For an atheist, are there any sure reasons to be ethical
-
- Posts: 126
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 4:20 pm
Re: For an atheist, are there any sure reasons to be ethical
No. Consequentialism is a moral theory in which the standard of value defined as a result of the certain action. This is circular argument which doesn't define bad and good. Suppose the result of action " A" is "R". How do you know whether or not " R" is good or bad, moral or immoral? Without objective standard there is no way to know .MarcusPCato wrote:Aren't you, in effect, asserting the consequent?
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: April 18th, 2012, 10:47 am
Re: For an atheist, are there any sure reasons to be ethical
- James195101
- Posts: 141
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 6:48 am
Re: For an atheist, are there any sure reasons to be ethical
Consider how many many things we have in common with wolves, such as: choosing prey for food, killing prey for food, clubbing together to hunt, having a leader and following a leader, choosing a leader, mating, having young, protecting rearing and feeding young, competing with other tribes/packs for food, killing our own kind when deemed necessary. Sure we are a special animal, but we need to face truth in order to use our minds usefully.Leonid wrote: Humans are volitional, rational beings whose nature requires them to act on the conscious choice in order to sustain their life. Mind is their tool of survival, not teeth, wings or instincts. The operation of mind requires freedom from coercion. The concept of right to live designates freedom of action in the social context. Animals don't act on conscious choice, their modus operandi is mostly build-in mechanism and therefore concept of rights is inapplicable to them. Killing humans in any circumstances would mean an elimination of right to live for both killers and their victims. In such a situation no man could exist and act qua man, that is- a rational being. From the other hand man cannot exist as an animal, as an animal cannot exist by means of plant. The abnegation man's life as an objective standard of value means therefore an abnegation of man. That why cannibalism, human sacrifice are not sustainable for the long run and murder was considered to be a crime already in the times of Hammurabi.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023