Common misconceptions about atheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter EnterTheBowser
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Pug:
No, I hadn’t heard the term enough to retain the phrase. I looked it up, though. To claim that is enough for me to have encompased the thought behind it would be absurd. It claims to not be consequentialist, which I will accept at face value for now.

…

If you have a particular web reference that explains how concrete decisions are made in various standard *tight *situations, I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...
Strangely enough most virtue ethicists will argue that it is wrong to suspect that morality can be reduced to a set of rules that a sufficiently clever teenager could apply. That aside, the SEP usually has a good overview of philosophical issues:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

This entry was written by Rosalind Hursthouse, a prominent modern virtue ethicist. Her paper “Virtue Ethics and Abortion” had quite an impact on me. I’m trying to learn more about this particular view (and admit that I don’t know too much). I don’t think deontology or utilitarianism really “gets it right,” but like I said, on issues of morality I have no certainty.
 
BOWSER

And as I’ve said previously - it might be really nice if I had a long-lost uncle who’s going to leave me millions of dollars… but that’s not good reason to believe that I actually have such an uncle.

Ah, but what if that uncle really exists, and you’ve refused his inheritance because you refuse to believe that he exists?

It’s always in your best interest to believe that anything to your advantage might be possible, rather than to to believe that something to your advantage is impossible.

You never know.
 
MrWhy

*The final hour of life is a scarry time for almost everyone, and not a time conducive to rational thought. Desperation and fear rule the mind. I don’t see how an individuals action at that point is evidence for or against anything.
*
Great and wonderful things have been discovered during desperate times. Rationality has been very active during times of war when looking for ways to save lives. Necessity is the mother of imagination and discovery … why not so on our death bed as well when intellect has been a self-imposed obstacle to discovering God?
 
BROWSER

…intellect has been a self-imposed obstacle to discovering God?

What I meant to say is that intellect is an obstacle to God when the will orders the intellect to explain God away … which it is always glad to do … since intellect is obedient to will.

This is why I think that when theists and atheists debate the existence of God, too often they are talking past each other. The traditional proofs for the existence of God have no effect upon atheists because, as Kant pointed out long ago, the intellect will always find a way around such proofs. Likewise, the theist can always rebut the atheist merely by pointing out that he has no proof for the non-existence of God. So nothing ever gets settled.

It’s only when we talk about self-interest that both parties are really going to be tested. The theist here gets the clear advantage. It is to our advantage to believe in God if we take that belief seriously. There is no long term advantage in denying God if God truly exists, and there is considerable risk if we do.

What do we risk by believing in God and taking God seriously?

I will move part of this post to the Pascal thread for additional discussion there.
 
40.png
EnterTheBowser:
This entry was written by Rosalind Hursthouse, a prominent modern virtue ethicist. Her paper “Virtue Ethics and Abortion”
Click to expand...
For those reading along, here are the premises provided by Ms. Hursthouse in Virtue Theory and Abortion, Philosophy and Public Affairs, summer 1991 issue [labels are hers]:

P1 An action is right if and only if it is what a virtuous agent would do in the circumstances.
P1a A virtuous agent is one who acts virtuously, that is, one who has and exercises the virtues.
P2 A virtue is a character trait a human being needs to flourish or live well. [living well has a special word with it - eudiamonia]

(please, may have a typo, is hand typed).

A list of virtues/vices was not specified. Bowser, thank you for pointing me there, it was interesting to read. Of course, still digesting info (and prime rib Christmas dinner).
 
40.png
Pug:
For those reading along, here are the premises provided by Ms. Hursthouse in Virtue Theory and Abortion, Philosophy and Public Affairs, summer 1991 issue [labels are hers]:

P1 An action is right if and only if it is what a virtuous agent would do in the circumstances.
P1a A virtuous agent is one who acts virtuously, that is, one who has and exercises the virtues.
P2 A virtue is a character trait a human being needs to flourish or live well. [living well has a special word with it - eudiamonia]

(please, may have a typo, is hand typed).

A list of virtues/vices was not specified. Bowser, thank you for pointing me there, it was interesting to read. Of course, still digesting info (and prime rib Christmas dinner).
Click to expand...
Thanks for finding the reference. Merry Christmas!
 
40.png
EnterTheBowser:
…reduced to a set of rules that a sufficiently clever teenager could apply…Her paper “Virtue Ethics and Abortion” had quite an impact on me. I’m trying to learn more about this particular view (and admit that I don’t know too much). I don’t think deontology or utilitarianism really “gets it right,” but like I said, on issues of morality I have no certainty.
Click to expand...
I suspect you speak here of “prudence”. In my thought that word means an ease of decision in moral situations, often because you merely behave in line with your formed character. It does not mean being shrewd, as in, “it would be prudent not to sell those google stocks right now.” Your average adolescent does not have it highly developed.

In virtue ethics, prudence would correspond to a developed sense of practical wisdom. Thus, we are in agreement, I suspect, on this point.

BTW, I don’t really get what the virtue ethicist has against principles. They themselves have them, embodied in repsonse to virutes (Be honest!). Also, folks of my stamp have their entire morality oriented towards choices, that is, I self-constitute myself by my choices. I chose with a view towards human fulfillment (perhaps what she means by eudiamonia). My principles are rules that specifiy what acting with respect for human fulfullment means.

What aspect of her paper was influential?
 
40.png
Pug:
…

BTW, I don’t really get what the virtue ethicist has against principles. They themselves have them, embodied in repsonse to virutes (Be honest!). Also, folks of my stamp have their entire morality oriented towards choices, that is, I self-constitute myself by my choices. I chose with a view towards human fulfillment (perhaps what she means by eudiamonia). My principles are rules that specifiy what acting with respect for human fulfullment means.
Click to expand...
I think that they’re against hard and fast rules - such as always telling the truth (a feature of Kant’s deontology). Honesty might be a virtue but that doesn’t mean we can’t lie when it is necessary.
What aspect of her paper was influential?
Click to expand...
She presented a sort of third way in ethics beyond deontology and utilitarianism, and presented it well. I’d heard about virtue ethics before but she put it in a new light for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top