E
Ender
Guest
Nice argument.
“Where God is, all things are possible. Where God is not, all things are permissible.” Dostoyevsky
Ender
- Status
“Where God is, all things are possible. Where God is not, all things are permissible.” Dostoyevsky
Ender
S
severntofall
Guest
I admit that it was an assertion. I have this habit of responding to assertions with assertions just to give the theist a taste of their own medicine. As you will recall, you asserted that indivduals who doubt Aquinas’ proof’s are not the intellectuals they like consider themselves to be.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
No. This is precisely what annoys me; people misrepresenting arguments. I suggest you re-read the context in which i made the statement.
Let me rephrase. I basically said that the mere assertion that the Thomistic proofs are invalid is not itself an exercise in logic. A reasonable person would make a statement, and then back it up with an argument. That is not what was done. Instead, somebody arrogantly claimed that the arguments were disproved with out giving a valid reason. A Thomistic philosopher will never take kindly to a baseless assertion. Like-wise, if i made a poor assertion, an atheist would want me to back it up with a valid argument.
Otherwise it all just becomes a mud-slinging competition.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
exactly why do you find them to be proof of nothing, do you know of something physical which is self creating?
and i would say that there simplicity is indicative of their truth.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
generally they are not.
i am not asserting it at all. if you doubt thomistic proofs for no rational reason, than that person is not a rationalist, much less an intellectual.
are you saying that you have some unknown refutation of Aquinas?
if so please tell us, we would be interested in anything new
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
because hitler and stalin were not working as G-ds servant, moses was
that sort of misinformed opinion of the Judeo/Christain tradition is exactly why you should spend money on a bible
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
severntofall
The mere fact that you want an objective moral system doesn’t make it so. Certainly there is not evidence for one and certainly many of the greatest evils ever committed were committed by individuals claiming to be upholding god’s law.
Ahh, you must be thinking of these gents?
“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.” Adolf Hitler (42 million deaths attributed to Hitler’s policies)
“We guarantee the right of every citizen to combat by argument, propaganda, and agitation any and all religion. The Communist Party cannot be neutral toward religion. It stands for science, and all religion is opposed to science.” Joseph Stalin (20 million deaths attributed to Stalin’s policies)
“Religion is poison.” Mao Zedung (40 million deaths attributed to Mao’s policies)
The mere fact that you want an objective moral system doesn’t make it so. Certainly there is not evidence for one and certainly many of the greatest evils ever committed were committed by individuals claiming to be upholding god’s law.
Ahh, you must be thinking of these gents?
“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.” Adolf Hitler (42 million deaths attributed to Hitler’s policies)
“We guarantee the right of every citizen to combat by argument, propaganda, and agitation any and all religion. The Communist Party cannot be neutral toward religion. It stands for science, and all religion is opposed to science.” Joseph Stalin (20 million deaths attributed to Stalin’s policies)
“Religion is poison.” Mao Zedung (40 million deaths attributed to Mao’s policies)
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
**The subjectivists have a hard row to hoe. **
When they say there is no absolute truth, can they not see the absolute truth they have just uttered?
When they say there is no absolute beauty, have they never looked at a West Texas sunset?
When they say there is no certain moral law, have they never seen or even imagined an abortion?
Subjectivism allows objective truths to be redefined and even turned upside down.
Unborn children are fair game for murder, so long as the mother agrees.
People look better when they are covered with tattoos and have metal objects pinned to their eyes, tongue, and nose.
One man’s penis up another man’s anus is just an “alternate life style.”
When they say there is no absolute truth, can they not see the absolute truth they have just uttered?
When they say there is no absolute beauty, have they never looked at a West Texas sunset?
When they say there is no certain moral law, have they never seen or even imagined an abortion?
Subjectivism allows objective truths to be redefined and even turned upside down.
Unborn children are fair game for murder, so long as the mother agrees.
People look better when they are covered with tattoos and have metal objects pinned to their eyes, tongue, and nose.
One man’s penis up another man’s anus is just an “alternate life style.”
N
Nepenthe
Guest
I haven’t noticed religious people being especially more ‘objective’ in their moral practices than areligious people, no matter how much theists may gripe about that statement. Please do remember, some of you in this thread, that atheism does not necessarily involve denying theism, or gods, or -A- god per se.
While I list myself as an agnostic, I generally do so to keep things simple. As anyone who has read my posts before, I am indeed what most on this forum would call an atheist, in that I am not a theist. This is not dishonesty! I can indeed be listed under the ‘strong agnostic’ category as easily as I can be listed under the ‘weak atheist’ category, in that I can’t say with a straight face that it is impossible that God, gods, or other supernatural beings exist - I merely think it highly unlikely, have no reason to think there are, and am not especially concerned about it, and find it rather undisciplined in general when people attempt to say anything meaningful about such possible (however unlikely) entities.
Of course, should any all-powerful (or close enough) thingies show up and do whatever it is they do show up (including Lovecraftian, face-eating Horrors from the Void) I’ll get plenty concerned!
As to ‘objective morality’, well, Kant is a pretty good place to start, and his work is nicely applicable to theists and nontheists alike. I cannot see morality as a simple list of shalts and shalt-nots. I’m much to concerned with the whys and hows of any moral system to let it lie at ‘so-and-so SAYS so’. Even many of the very finest Catholic traditions insist that if you aren’t questioning, learning, and stripping down your presumptions, you aren’t doing it right!
In a case like my own, what you wind up with is extremely close to a Liberal Quaker in practice, and indeed, I would go to Friend’s Meetings fairly often if there were any within a reasonable travel distance. You don’t need to even be a theist to blend in just fine there, and I do share their ideals pretty much to a T. It’d be very nice to have a community of similar-minded people to hang out with and discuss all manner of topics of inquiry. Very big deal with Quakers, that bit, once they’re done simply sitting and contemplating, and I like that very much indeed.
While I list myself as an agnostic, I generally do so to keep things simple. As anyone who has read my posts before, I am indeed what most on this forum would call an atheist, in that I am not a theist. This is not dishonesty! I can indeed be listed under the ‘strong agnostic’ category as easily as I can be listed under the ‘weak atheist’ category, in that I can’t say with a straight face that it is impossible that God, gods, or other supernatural beings exist - I merely think it highly unlikely, have no reason to think there are, and am not especially concerned about it, and find it rather undisciplined in general when people attempt to say anything meaningful about such possible (however unlikely) entities.
Of course, should any all-powerful (or close enough) thingies show up and do whatever it is they do show up (including Lovecraftian, face-eating Horrors from the Void) I’ll get plenty concerned!
As to ‘objective morality’, well, Kant is a pretty good place to start, and his work is nicely applicable to theists and nontheists alike. I cannot see morality as a simple list of shalts and shalt-nots. I’m much to concerned with the whys and hows of any moral system to let it lie at ‘so-and-so SAYS so’. Even many of the very finest Catholic traditions insist that if you aren’t questioning, learning, and stripping down your presumptions, you aren’t doing it right!
In a case like my own, what you wind up with is extremely close to a Liberal Quaker in practice, and indeed, I would go to Friend’s Meetings fairly often if there were any within a reasonable travel distance. You don’t need to even be a theist to blend in just fine there, and I do share their ideals pretty much to a T. It’d be very nice to have a community of similar-minded people to hang out with and discuss all manner of topics of inquiry. Very big deal with Quakers, that bit, once they’re done simply sitting and contemplating, and I like that very much indeed.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Nepenthe
I can’t say with a straight face that it is impossible that God, gods, or other supernatural beings exist - I merely think it highly unlikely, have no reason to think there are, and am not especially concerned about it, and find it rather undisciplined in general when people attempt to say anything meaningful about such possible (however unlikely) entities.
Though you seem sublimely indifferent to God and religion (not indifferent enough, however, to bypass Catholic Answers) I wonder how indifferent you would be if it suddenly occurred to you that it’s more likely that God does exist. I suspect that you might still be rather unconcerned … sort of a cafeteria Catholic, choosing and rejecting with relative laid-back indifference the truths that appealed or did not appeal to you.
What do you think?
I can’t say with a straight face that it is impossible that God, gods, or other supernatural beings exist - I merely think it highly unlikely, have no reason to think there are, and am not especially concerned about it, and find it rather undisciplined in general when people attempt to say anything meaningful about such possible (however unlikely) entities.
Though you seem sublimely indifferent to God and religion (not indifferent enough, however, to bypass Catholic Answers) I wonder how indifferent you would be if it suddenly occurred to you that it’s more likely that God does exist. I suspect that you might still be rather unconcerned … sort of a cafeteria Catholic, choosing and rejecting with relative laid-back indifference the truths that appealed or did not appeal to you.
What do you think?
N
Nepenthe
Guest
Whoops, a better wording might have been that I cannot say with a completely straight face that supernatural beings do NOT exist, merely that I think it highly unlikely, etc. Same meaning, but perhaps a little clearer.
And my interest in this forum actually is not regarding my concern about the existence, non-existence, or meaningful nature of supernatural beings, but the people who do believe in them, and all the various ways different people relate to the world and their inner workings.
And I am not a Catholic, or any kind of Christian, or any other religion, cafeteria or not. I sincerely doubt, barring severe head trauma or other drastic mind/brain alteration that it would ‘occur to me’ that the existence of the supernatural is suddenly more likely than I already do, which is to say, not much. It would take quite a bit of very hard evidence to do such a thing. At some point, for instance when I become close to death, I may very well WISH there was some all-powerful, all-good entity promising me eternal life and freedom from pain, but wishing something is so does not make it any more likely.
So yes, I am quite indifferent to theistical matters save as thought-exercises perhaps, but I am very certainly NOT indifferent to many other things, notably human suffering, intellectual inquiry, and many more issues of great moral import. I strive constantly to refine my thoughts and uphold the most stringent moral standards concerning such matters. So do not, however obliquely, tar me with the catchphrase-brush of ‘cafeteria-ism’, please. All too often, people latch onto that phrase in order to denigrate those applying their critical faculties to matters of morality, knowledge, and belief. I have worked hard all my life to learn as much as I can about both the desirability and feasibility of ideals, and practice those ideals that after exhaustive testing and redaction seem wisest. And sometimes I am wrong, but I keep on chugging away at those problems until I get them right, find them irrelevant, or at least make improvements!
And my interest in this forum actually is not regarding my concern about the existence, non-existence, or meaningful nature of supernatural beings, but the people who do believe in them, and all the various ways different people relate to the world and their inner workings.
And I am not a Catholic, or any kind of Christian, or any other religion, cafeteria or not. I sincerely doubt, barring severe head trauma or other drastic mind/brain alteration that it would ‘occur to me’ that the existence of the supernatural is suddenly more likely than I already do, which is to say, not much. It would take quite a bit of very hard evidence to do such a thing. At some point, for instance when I become close to death, I may very well WISH there was some all-powerful, all-good entity promising me eternal life and freedom from pain, but wishing something is so does not make it any more likely.
So yes, I am quite indifferent to theistical matters save as thought-exercises perhaps, but I am very certainly NOT indifferent to many other things, notably human suffering, intellectual inquiry, and many more issues of great moral import. I strive constantly to refine my thoughts and uphold the most stringent moral standards concerning such matters. So do not, however obliquely, tar me with the catchphrase-brush of ‘cafeteria-ism’, please. All too often, people latch onto that phrase in order to denigrate those applying their critical faculties to matters of morality, knowledge, and belief. I have worked hard all my life to learn as much as I can about both the desirability and feasibility of ideals, and practice those ideals that after exhaustive testing and redaction seem wisest. And sometimes I am wrong, but I keep on chugging away at those problems until I get them right, find them irrelevant, or at least make improvements!
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
In other words, you simply refuse to take the theological or philosophical concepts and proofs of God seriously; and the principle of empiricism is your excuse. Am i correct?
It seems to me that you are only interested in knowing those things which you perceive to be of benefit to your atheism and personal desire.
This doesn’t sound very intelligent to me. Theres nothing positive, practical or reasonable about believing or having faith that we exist for no purpose and have no objective value as persons. The fact that we are going live and cease to exist in a relatively short period of time and face many potential horrors in this life time, ought to compel you to take the possibility of God seriously.
Why would anybody with any compassion or sense–whats so ever–bring a living person into this world and tell then that God doesn’t exist when considering all of the above??? Better that we end the human race, better that we never existed at all, rather then subject people to the potential horrors of life and the cold inevitability of death. The atheist would have to create illogical fantasies in order to justify the existence of new people. A naturalist has to take existence for granted in order to think positively about this world; to believe that it would be better to be born then not at all. And while some have found ways to numb and ignore the pain of existence without God through some form of usury, drug, exploitation, relationship or sex, not all have the capacity or privilege to be able use and exploit their fellow human being for pleasure. What is the point of life then, other then to fulfill some selfish and empty notion of humanity? Naturalism is the same as robing people of any positive reason to exist whatsoever, and then telling people to deal with it. But the world isn’t enough for the deep thinker; the honest thinker who wants to know the world as it really is, and at the same time be fulfilled as a living breathing person. Such a person would be damaged by a world such as this. And a world without God is merely an invitation to assisted suicide. Promoting disbelief is not thinking about the well being of future generations. Rather it is to serve our own selfish individual fantasies in order that we can feel comfortable with are own burden of existence. We cannot stand to live it alone.
For this reason i see the promotion of naturalism and militant skepticism as ultimately the greatest evil that man has ever conceived of. So, yes i reject naturalism out of moral principle, since we do not know that God doesn’t exist, and even if there is only small posibility that God does exist, a reasonable person would believe it so far as it doesn’t contradict reason, and they would also promote it as a positive foundation for existing. There is such a thing as practical reason; and so far as that is concerned, naturalism is an illogical belief to teach and hold.
But you obviously take life for granted; so why would you see that? For you; human need is unimportant.
This is where i unsubscribe from this thread. Not much more can be said to a mind that is closed.
N
Nepenthe
Guest
To MindOverMatter, whether or not you can be bothered to read this:
Sigh. It is often very difficult to communicate with people who are absolutely certain that they are RIGHT and know all that needs to be known about being so very, very correct.
‘In other words’, indeed! I neither said nor meant that I did not take theistic concepts seriously. I take what I called ‘thought-exercises’ extremely seriously! I meant that in the same sense as when Einstein, for example, referred to ‘thought-experiments’ when discussing physics. One more time - I have never denied that God, gods, or various other supernatural beings or occurrences may possibly exist (or to my way of thinking, since the word ‘supernatural’ is involved, may interfere with or influence the natural world, universe, cosmos, whatever you wish to call it). But neither do I have any reason to think they do.
As to constructing ‘illogical fantasies’, why, that is absolutely vital to being able to think at all! We are constantly constructing counterfactual worlds, both possible and (so far as we know…) impossible, whenever we cogitate - so much so that we are often scarcely aware of it, since it really is that basic and crucial a faculty, much like we generally do not pause to do complicated mathematics consciously to catch a ball.
As for this ‘taking life for granted’, bet you a dollar I have nearly died more often and in a greater variety of ways than you have. I do not take it for granted at all - quite the reverse!
Since you are clearly not interested in anything I had to say, because I perceive the world differently than you do, you doubtless missed the bit where I specifically mentioned that human suffering, and so it follows, human need is of immense importance to my considerations about morality and ethics. Poor reading comprehension (whether you were just skimming, or actively cherrypicking out of context, or whatever), uncharitability, and attempting to be patronizing do not make for a very meaningful post.
But I do agree, it is indeed so that not much can be communicated to a closed mind. Mine does indeed remain open - however, I require testable, falsifiable evidence when discussing the nature of reality. For the rest, I do not feel uncomfortable either with saying ‘I do not know’, or when presented with such evidence, changing my perceptions and actions accordingly. Should someone prove to my satisfaction that God, gods, or other such things exist, why then, I would simply say ‘Huh, nice proof’ and make those changes, particularly if the empirical evidence confirmed said proof.
I really don’t see what there is to get so worked up over.
Sigh. It is often very difficult to communicate with people who are absolutely certain that they are RIGHT and know all that needs to be known about being so very, very correct.
‘In other words’, indeed! I neither said nor meant that I did not take theistic concepts seriously. I take what I called ‘thought-exercises’ extremely seriously! I meant that in the same sense as when Einstein, for example, referred to ‘thought-experiments’ when discussing physics. One more time - I have never denied that God, gods, or various other supernatural beings or occurrences may possibly exist (or to my way of thinking, since the word ‘supernatural’ is involved, may interfere with or influence the natural world, universe, cosmos, whatever you wish to call it). But neither do I have any reason to think they do.
As to constructing ‘illogical fantasies’, why, that is absolutely vital to being able to think at all! We are constantly constructing counterfactual worlds, both possible and (so far as we know…) impossible, whenever we cogitate - so much so that we are often scarcely aware of it, since it really is that basic and crucial a faculty, much like we generally do not pause to do complicated mathematics consciously to catch a ball.
As for this ‘taking life for granted’, bet you a dollar I have nearly died more often and in a greater variety of ways than you have. I do not take it for granted at all - quite the reverse!
Since you are clearly not interested in anything I had to say, because I perceive the world differently than you do, you doubtless missed the bit where I specifically mentioned that human suffering, and so it follows, human need is of immense importance to my considerations about morality and ethics. Poor reading comprehension (whether you were just skimming, or actively cherrypicking out of context, or whatever), uncharitability, and attempting to be patronizing do not make for a very meaningful post.
But I do agree, it is indeed so that not much can be communicated to a closed mind. Mine does indeed remain open - however, I require testable, falsifiable evidence when discussing the nature of reality. For the rest, I do not feel uncomfortable either with saying ‘I do not know’, or when presented with such evidence, changing my perceptions and actions accordingly. Should someone prove to my satisfaction that God, gods, or other such things exist, why then, I would simply say ‘Huh, nice proof’ and make those changes, particularly if the empirical evidence confirmed said proof.
I really don’t see what there is to get so worked up over.
D
Dameedna
Guest
edited by myself
D
Dameedna
Guest
They don’t. They usually believe that moral codes grow over time, through a process of trial and error as humans learn to transcend their former behaviour.
It’s a process, and it is never-ending within our lifetime(or humanities)
This is nice in theory. It does not work in practice. It leads to the narcisisstic human tendacy to believe we are right, because we think we “know” we are right. We think we’ve got that “code” that God has given us, and then try and teach everyone else they should follow our view of the world.
Imagine the world being run by every human, who had an epiphany.
Yes, and a natural world, without invoking gods, could explain the same eventual path that humans travel toward a path of survival.
It is not difficult to see, over several thousand years of studying human behaviour, that humans have progressively grown. The problem, is that the “reason” for this was determined to be the Gods. Those that created this “growth” hypothesis, did not know we evolved. They watched human growth and were amazed by it. It is now shown to be an element of our human evolution, making a God hypthesis redundant.
Yes, humans can learn what is good for them. No, a God is not needed to explain this.
We don’t know. And claiming we do, by saying “God told us” doesn’t make one wit of a difference. It is just a human claiming it.
It has alway’s been that way. Why do you think there is so much that we do wrong and bad for each other? People don’t do things in the name of badness, they do it in the name of goodness. They do it in the name of God…they DO IT…in the NAME of an OBJECTIVE TRUTH that should never be denied, or else you deny God.
They still hurt people, in the name of their absolute truths, and eventually those truths are challenged and humans move forward. It seems that absolute truths are not something that enhances humanity. The belief in an objective truth, hurts us.
All man has, is his own mind. When he searches for something and finds it…what he finds, has to do with him. And him alone.
Maybe, just maybe…if there is a God. He isn’t about to give you the “rules” of life. Perhaps the point of the human life, is not to sit there and think you have it figured out, but to learn. Perhaps the church was correct, in determining that human life was about transcendance.
And they were perhaps incorrect and very , very failable when they claimed they knew the absolute truth.
What kind of human, is so very arrogant, to presume that they have it figured out?
D
Dameedna
Guest
Short, but sweet
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
I suppose Nietzsche is right: Without God, a group of men may create a moral code. The code, however, has no authority other than that of the majority. As Socrates himself learned when he was condemned to drink poison for speaking the truth, grave consequences might result when the mob rules.
D
Dameedna
Guest
Yes there is. Truth, is more important than life itself. The athiest supports truth more important than a desire to believe they will not die. The athiest, gives up everything for truth and love. The power the athiest submits to is more important to the athiest, than a belief that one day they can live forever.
Hope I made that clear.
Can you , as a believer honestly make the same claim? That you have given up any dream of eternity for the sake of something bigger than yourself?
Wether you like it or not, that is EXACTLY what the athiest does. It’s rather humbling when you realize who they really are.
R
reggieM
Guest
Every suicide says the same thing. Beyond that, those who conclude that God does not exist have given up the search and they deny that others have found God. This is not a pursuit of truth in an unbiased manner. It is closing off paths of inquiry. There is an assumption that human beings are capable of fully knowing “the Truth”. It is egotistical to think that a human being can know the truth about the universe – it simply can’t be proven. Therefore, life is obviously more important than “the Truth”.
Without life, there can be no truth (in the atheistic-materalist view).
There are many self-contradictions. How do natural laws and evolutionary processes create “the Truth”? If atheism was consistent, it would admit that the Truth is as irrelevant to humans as it is to their ancestors the bacteria (and inanimate substances before them).
The fact that some atheists claim to be interested in “the Truth” refutes materialistic-evolution.
But atheism can provide no hope, only despair. There can be no ultimate fulfillment of life. It is all transient and destined to end in the grave with a rotting corpse. Conscience, memory, imagination, love, justice – these all speak to an enduring future. But atheism cuts that off and provides no hope for fulfillment.
The fact that an atheist can proclaim that kind of despair, loss and futility while having no interest in pursuing a search for God, indicates that it is not about Truth at all.
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Sidekick, all,
An atheist is certainly free to assert that there are true and false things to be said about ethics. It is either true or false that forcing women to wear burkas helps humanity flourish and the truth or falsehood of that assertion is as knowable as any claim once we decide on how the veracity of the claim is to be evaluated. Saying that smoking can cause cancer is no more true than saying that certain other practices that we consider to be in the realm of morals actually have specific and real consequences for individuals or societies. Such truths can be established in the same ways that we learn other truths.
Are adult men who were taught that masturbation is evil as a child now more happy and well-adjusted or less happy and well-adjusted than men who did not receive this teaching? Are societies who prohibit young men and women from interacting more or less healthy than ones who allow such interactions? We can ask all sorts of questions about morality when we think of it in terms of human well-being and have hope of answering them in the same way that we know that smoking causes cancer.
To not believe in a single absolute standard for right and wrong that exists “out there” for human beings to conform to is not the same thing as saying that there aren’t better and worse ways for human beings to behave. Pragmatists like me just say that true and false and good and bad are understood in relation to some human purpose and can only be understood in practice. This view is opposed to the theist view of Goodness as an essence, but both views are rightly called “morality” since they are concerned with right and wrong.
For pragmatists, the truth of a moral proposition is either born out in human experience or not. That is the “objective foundation” of morality. Either certain behaviors, attitudes, prohibitions, and virtues really are good for people or they are not. And if such truths exist then we can and should seek to know them.
Best,
Leela
I think you are begging the question when you say, “if man takes God out of morality.” If what you mean by an objective moral code is having specific knowledge of what God wants in a given sort of situation, then of course atheists will never say that. But atheists think that morality has never been about gods but about concern for other human beings. There are certainly objective reasons why we should be concerned about the wellfare of others. For example, people don’t need to believe in God to love their children.
An atheist is certainly free to assert that there are true and false things to be said about ethics. It is either true or false that forcing women to wear burkas helps humanity flourish and the truth or falsehood of that assertion is as knowable as any claim once we decide on how the veracity of the claim is to be evaluated. Saying that smoking can cause cancer is no more true than saying that certain other practices that we consider to be in the realm of morals actually have specific and real consequences for individuals or societies. Such truths can be established in the same ways that we learn other truths.
Are adult men who were taught that masturbation is evil as a child now more happy and well-adjusted or less happy and well-adjusted than men who did not receive this teaching? Are societies who prohibit young men and women from interacting more or less healthy than ones who allow such interactions? We can ask all sorts of questions about morality when we think of it in terms of human well-being and have hope of answering them in the same way that we know that smoking causes cancer.
To not believe in a single absolute standard for right and wrong that exists “out there” for human beings to conform to is not the same thing as saying that there aren’t better and worse ways for human beings to behave. Pragmatists like me just say that true and false and good and bad are understood in relation to some human purpose and can only be understood in practice. This view is opposed to the theist view of Goodness as an essence, but both views are rightly called “morality” since they are concerned with right and wrong.
For pragmatists, the truth of a moral proposition is either born out in human experience or not. That is the “objective foundation” of morality. Either certain behaviors, attitudes, prohibitions, and virtues really are good for people or they are not. And if such truths exist then we can and should seek to know them.
Best,
Leela
- Status