Defense of the abortion/Discussion about Ethics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nonatheist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
l believe in objective right and wrong.
And l think the existence of God is more probable than not.
 
It is not possible to believe in objective right and wrong and not believe in God.

The two concepts occupy the same logical space. They are an inseparable package.
 
Belief in God don’t mean someone has to be religious.
l think humans can know objective right and wrong by using philosophy.
 
Nonatheist said:
Belief in God don’t mean someone has to be religious.
Click to expand...
That is a different subject.

All I said was, belief in God necessarily means belief in objective right and wrong, and the corollary is that belief in objective right and wrong necessarily means believing in God.

By analogy, belief in the foces of gravity necessarily means acceptance of planetary orbit, and vice versa
 
l agree with first part, but reject the second one.
Most atheists believe in objective laws of logic, but they don’t need God for that.

You could make an argument that those objective things require God, but that’s a different dicussion.
 
Well, not to be rude, but you also implied you were very familiar with natural law, which I think is now clearly not the case. So I am skeptical of your familiarity with the 5 ways (etc.). Maybe you are missing something?

My guess is you have had talks (about the 5 ways for example) with people who have not actually studied these things. I have put in the time and effort… like, years, and years, and years of it… I’m an actual, real-live expert. Anyway, that’s my pitch. But you’ll make no progress until you get to the deeper issue.

-K
 
For example, that there is an “is/ought” gap problem, the blithe dismissal of “happiness” as a plausible orientation point for ethics, that it requires a specific religious view, that there is an inappropriate conflation of moral and non-moral goodness, that "eating would be good under natural law,’ and “same with killing [it would be bad]”… and that getting this stuff right “would [not] make a big difference in this conversation.”

-K
 
Last edited:
For conciousness after death, at least one near death experiencer, Dr. Eben Alexander reports being conscious after his brain activity was inert due to an aggressive E Coli infection. That should have made his experience impossible by the theories of cognition purposed. Many other near death experiencers report knowledge they couldn’t otherwise be aware of. Ie a red sock underneath the air conditioning unit on floor 7 of the hospital, when they were in a coma, in bed on floor 2 for the duration. That type of evidence.
 
Is/ought problem exists under natural law, same with any other naturalistic ethical philosophy.
What does ‘happiness’ have to do with natural law? This is the first time l hear that.
You have to be a theist or a natural theist, l didn’t say religious.
It’s not possible for natural law to exist without some form of God, Thomistic natural law requires the theistic/classical theistic God, while aristotelian natural law could exist with deistic/more abstract idea of God.

l will try to explain what natural law theory is and you tell me if l am wrong:

Natural law theory is the idea that humans have morality written in their nature, and by understanding their nature and using the power of reason, they can understand what is good and what isn’t.
Natural law theory holds that goodness is acting acording to ones nature, and badness is going against ones nature. Did l get that right?
 
l have seen arguments against natural law theory having is/ought problem, so that point is debatable.
 
Nonatheist said:
Egypt didn’t have an ethical theory, they values cats and dung beetles purely because of their religion and culture.
Click to expand...
Why did their religion and culture put so much value on cats? If you were correct about human value of animals, then they wouldn’t have.
Nonatheist said:
Humans are animals, so for us to be above other animals, we have to have something other animals don’t. l can also point examples throughout history where animals were more valuable than other humans.
Click to expand...
Okay, but animals give preferential treatment to other animals of their species. Humans treat humans better than other species. It’s part of nature.
Nonatheist said:
Examples from history don’t help us build something close to an objective ethical theory
Click to expand...
I…don’t really know what to say here. You think that looking at concrete examples doesn’t help us discover why humans value animals? Is that really what you want to say? If so, there’s absolutely no point in discussing anything further.
 
Humans make illogical decisions all the time, how culture evolves is mostly random.

Animals are not rational beings, and even they kill only for food or defense.

We can know why humans allowed things we deem as immoral, but that won’t help us find an most objective and logical ethical system. Humans were fine with slavery for most of our history.
 
Naturalistic fallacy? Yes, I sensed some Moore in you.

Happiness - the entire point of natural law…

You said in post #303 that natural law would be “incomplete” without certain religious values/doctrines added on top.

Yes, you need God… Not sure what the wedge is between Thomas and Aristotle you are trying to propose… As if a “theistic” God is more natural-law-ish than a “deistic” God…?

It’s not that bad, but there is some ambiguity, and certainly some incompleteness. Like: happiness!

-K
 
Nonatheist said:
Humans make illogical decisions all the time, how culture evolves is mostly random.
Click to expand...
If this is your only defense of your theory, then there’s no point in trying to show you the glaring problems with it. You’re not here in good faith.
 
l talked to many thomists, no one of them ever mentioned happiness as a major role in natural law thoery.
Please explain to me what role happiness plays, l am really curious

Yes, natural law can’t explain many things in Christianity,: Sex outside mariage being just one of them.
Aristotle believed and focused his natural law theory around much different idea of God.
 
That has nothing to do with my theory.
You have the examples of people acting against my theory in the past, how is that suposed to hurt my theory?
 
You claim that your theory is the easily visible truth that governs human behavior. It’s clearly not, and you refuse to even address this contradiction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top