A World without Religion?

[PRmerger]

Who defines good and evil? The person herself?

Objective morality does.

Just like asking: who defines whether square has 4 sides or not? Geometry does.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, my mistake. Read “moral agent” to mean something like “thing which can make decisions based on morality.” But ya, I’d agree that a moral person must do moral things by definition, just as a triangle must have three sides and a skydiver has to jump out of airplanes.

Egg-zactly. We are compelled to follow the truth, or die trying.

A skydiver who decides to make a decision for himself that he doesn’t want to subscribe to the law of gravity…he’s going to will himself to fly…is going to…die trying.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

No.

Which definition of “must” would you use to answer the question I posed.

Do you agree that a moral person must do good and avoid evil?

Synonymous with the definitions provided in response to your use of “compelled” in #380.

 

[Bradski]

Or “It is always wrong to rape someone”. Not debatable.

I can think of many scenarios where the very definition of rape would be debatable. But what I think you are saying, is that there are some things in favour of which no reasonable person could be expected to mount an argument. No disagreement there.

We only have two options here. Is everything debatable or are some things not. If the latter, then we’re going to need to know which ones are off the table and as sure as God made little green apples, we will not reach agreement on that. So to say that literally everything is debatable is a fail-safe. It is the default position which we must accept in order to ensure that we have a reasonable argument either for or against something. As opposed to one of us saying – ‘well, it just is’.

The fact that ‘torturing puppies is wrong’ doesn’t require a great deal of nuanced argument is irrelevant. We wouldn’t have to bother mounting an argument at all with reasonable people because we can safely expect them to agree with us. But we would be able to if required. And, back to the topic, you don’t need to preface your argument with: the church/the pope/the catechism/the bible says it’s wrong because…

You can leave that out and simply say: It’s wrong because…and the argument will stand or fall on its own merits. If you say that rape is wrong just because it is, then you are free to say that about anything. And that’s not allowed.

 

[PRmerger]

And unless you physically force someone from doing it, you are going to have to enter into a debate with that person to show him why he shouldn’t be doing it. I’m sure you’d agree that simply saying ‘The church/the pope/the catechism/the bible says it’s wrong’ wouldn’t get you very far. You would have to expand on that and say: The church etc says it’s wrong because…’

Friend, I’m not sure what the above is arguing for…as if you think I would disagree with any of that?

I never argue with atheists that a position is moral or evil because the Church/Catechism/Scriptures/Pope says it is.

That’s what the debate is for.

Yep. And that’s why we have philosophy and theology. And did you know that those disciplines are even taught at Catholic universities?

We even have an entity called moral theology. And moral theologians–some of whom are priests!

Sometimes I wonder why I keep having to remind you that you are on a Catholic forum, not a fundamentalist forum. I know you frequent lots of sites, so I think you forget the venue?

Our entire raison d’etre here on the CAFs is to have debate and discourse…and this is all with the blessing of the Church.

There’s even a term for it…and professionals who get paid for being…Catholic Apologists.

To formulate a reasoned argument why something should be so.

Oh…I am so amused right now…to see an atheist quoting Scripture when he doesn’t even know he’s doing so.
Always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,–1 Peter 3:15
Come, let us reason together–Isaiah 1:18

 

[PRmerger]

Synonymous with the definitions provided in response to your use of “compelled” in #380.

Ok.

So what’s your answer? Yes? Or no?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Ok.

So what’s your answer? Yes? Or no?

#382

 

[PRmerger]

If he won’t listen then maybe you could gather together all those who agree with him, then get a few hefty friends to hold him down and remove the end of his penis with a rusty razor blade.

Eww. Did you really have to give me that visual?

And to get the thread back on target, I’m sure that you realise that if we didn’t end up holding him down, the arguments which we’d use to win him over would be the same. You could skip the bit about ‘the church/the pope etc. No requirement to mention religion whatsoever.

Yep. No requirement to mention religion whatsoever.

Which is why there’s a lot of moral atheists who are against abortion. And anti gay-“marriage”. And against murder. And against beating your wife. And against female circumcision.

I can argue against all of those things without ever appealing to the Bible, the Church, the popes, the Catechism. Not even once.

 

[Bradski]

Just because people debate about an issue doesn’t mean there isn’t one correct answer. IOW: absence of a consensus does not equal absence of truth.

Agreed.

I think we would agree that even if folks don’t think it’s wrong to circumcise a girl to stop her from sexual pleasure…it is indeed wrong.

Yes, I think it’s wrong and you think it’s wrong for quite a few very valid reasons. And we would both have reasonable arguments to back up that assertion. Indeed, in this case we would need reasonable arguments in order to persuade someone to stop it.

Objective morality does.

OK, so who decides on objective morality? If you say that something is wrong, then, as we have just discussed, you need reasonable arguments to back up any claim that something is what you would describe as objectively wrong. Just saying it is because it is don’t cut no ice.

Let me ask you if there is anything objectively true where you disagree with that objective position.

If you do, then it’s not objective any more. If you don’t and you know all objective truths then either you are the go-to girl for all matters of morality or it’s just that it is your personal opinion that they are true. In which case the position is relative

 

[PRmerger]

#382

Here’s your answer: ““Must?” No. While I might encourage doing so nothings been identified that is obligating her to do so.”

So give me an example of a moral person who has NOT done good or has done evil.

How, exactly, is that done?

 

[PRmerger]

I can think of several people who would described as honorable, moral, and all around “Good” in their communities but not in other communities. I’m thinking about a guy that lived not far from me that owned a pizza shop (Chaudhry Rashid). In his religion marriage can only be dissolved in death. His daughter wanted to divorce to escape the arranged marriage she had with her cousin. So he did the “right” thing and killed her before she could divorce. The community that he is from before he came to the USA might describe him as an honorable and moralperson that saved his family from shame.

I find it peculiar that in your apologia for your position, you are actually supporting MY position.

You are saying, explicitly, “someone has a different morality than you and I do.”

But what you are really saying, implicitly, is “this person is immoral!”

And I know this by your use of quotation marks around the word “right”. You are tacitly proclaiming: he was NOT right to kill his daughter.

Or are you really going to state here, on a rather public forum, that Thinking Sapien believes that a father killing his daughter in an “honor killing” is actually a morally plausible choice?

Really?

 

[Bradski]

I never argue with atheists that a position is moral or evil because the Church/Catechism/Scriptures/Pope says it is.

Well, there you go. The thread is about a world without religion and there has been a lot of talk (not just in this thread) that asks how, if that were the case, we could decide on moral matters.

Easy peasy. We debate and have reasonable arguments.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, there you go. The thread is about a world without religion and there has been a lot of talk (not just in this thread) that asks how, if that were the case, we could decide on moral matters.

Easy peasy. We debate and have reasonable arguments.

Sure. No one need ever appeal to the Bible to argue that murder is wrong. Or abortion. Or adultery. Or gay “marriage”. Or killing your daughter because she wants a divorce.

 

[PRmerger]

OK, so who decides on objective morality?

I find that question similar to this: so who decides that a square has 4 equal sides at right angles?

What’s your answer to that?

If you say that something is wrong, then, as we have just discussed, you need reasonable arguments to back up any claim that something is what you would describe as objectively wrong. Just saying it is because it is don’t cut no ice.

Right

Let me ask you if there is anything objectively true where you disagree with that objective position.

I can’t think of anything at the moment.

If you do, then it’s not objective any more

Ok.

If you don’t and you know all objective truths then either you are the go-to girl for all matters of morality or it’s just that it is your personal opinion that they are true. In which case the position is relative

How does it follow that I know all objective truths?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I find it peculiar that in your apologia for your position, you are actually supporting MY position.

If you find my position compatible with your own that’s fine by me.

Or are you really going to state here, on a rather public forum, that Thinking Sapien believes that a father killing his daughter in an “honor killing” is actually a morally plausible choice?

It’s shared as an example of what was mentioned in the sentence that came right before where you started quoting.

So give me an example of a moral person who has NOT done good or has done evil.

Remember earlier in this thread in the message in which I used the word “tautology?” This seems to be a rewording of that message to which I responded with that word. Take a look back at my response.

 

[PRmerger]

If you find my position compatible with your own that’s fine by me.

Well, that’s fine with me, too.

But you’re refuting your own original position…which I assume is not fine with you?

It’s shared as an example of what was mentioned in the sentence that came right before where you started quoting.

I didn’t ask you why you shared it.

I am simply saying that in your example, what you are actually professing is that this guy was acting immorally. Otherwise, why use quotation marks with the word “right”? You are actually saying: he was NOT right.

Or are you really ready to proclaim here on the CAFs that you believe that the father who kills his daughter is acting morally?

Remember earlier in this thread in the message in which I used the word “tautology?” This seems to be a rewording of that message to which I responded with that word. Take a look back at my response.

I assume by your answer that you cannot give an example of a moral person doing evil.

As such, you do believe that a moral person MUST do good and avoid evil.

QED.

 

[Bradski]

How does it follow that I know all objective truths?

Something can’t be a little bit relative or a little bit objective. It’s either one or the other.

So…are you saying that if you class something as an objective truth you could be wrong? If you are, then I’ll make due allowance for that when you declare something to be objective (it’s just PR’s opinion – if asked she will admit that she could be wrong about it). Unless you would like to tell me which objective truths you are absolutely certain about and then the ones where you’re not too sure.

But if you are saying that you could not be wrong, then if anyone has any doubt on the matter, they need simply to defer to you.

So are you right about some of them or all of them?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Egg-zactly. We are compelled to follow the truth, or die trying.

A skydiver who decides to make a decision for himself that he doesn’t want to subscribe to the law of gravity…he’s going to will himself to fly…is going to…die trying.

This is a pretty serious misinterpretation of what I wrote. I believe a good person must do good things, by definition. That is, if they don’t, they are no longer a good person. Why? Because a good person is one who does good things. Just as a “triangle” with four sides is no longer a triangle, a good person that ceases to do good things is no longer good. I do not believe that people are inherently compelled to do anything, let alone follow some “truth.”

I can see why the other poster was so keen on getting the definition down, to avoid the conflation just witnessed above.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Well, that’s fine with me, too.

But you’re refuting your own original position…which I assume is not fine with you?

I get the impression that you believe me to be refuting my own position because I haven’t adopted that ambiguously worded statement into the description of my position.

I am simply saying that in your example, what you are actually professing is that this guy was acting immorally.

I selected that example because I am sure that most readers in this forum would evaluate his course of actions as immoral. An example of someone whose actions were seen by himself and possibly one of his communities as being “moral” that don’t agree with the evaluation of the user goes to support the statement “They said that unless the two people communication have significant overlap in their moral systems than to describe a person as “moral” might not carry much meaning.”

ThinkingSapien;12657639:

Remember earlier in this thread in the message in which I used the word “tautology?” This seems to be a rewording of that message to which I responded with that word. Take a look back at my response.

I assume by your answer that you cannot give an example of a moral person doing evil.

It appears you didn’t look. Oh well…

As such, you do believe that a moral person MUST do good and avoid evil.

Replied to in #396.

 

[PRmerger]

Something can’t be a little bit relative or a little bit objective. It’s either one or the other.

Correct.

So…are you saying that if you class something as an objective truth you could be wrong?

Sure. I could be wrong.

If you are, then I’ll make due allowance for that when you declare something to be objective (it’s just PR’s opinion – if asked she will admit that she could be wrong about it).

Of course you should do that. Always do that. It’s called critical thinking, Brad.

With the caveat: I wouldn’t say it’s “just” my opinion. It ought to be given due respect, given what you know of me and our history together.

Just like you give due respect to your 4th grade teacher, Mrs. Caltigarone, telling you about the theory of continental drift. You believe it because you trust her. You wouldn’t call what she told you about continental drift “just” her opinion.

So are you right about some of them or all of them?

I am as right about them as you are about taking penicillin to cure your strep throat. You’re never 100% certain that it’s going to work, but you operate on the trust that it will, given the data you’ve acquired.