Do the Atheists have it right: Just Be Good for Goodness' Sake?

[williamric]

Hi Granny,

Thanks for your nice reply again…

So why are we, myself included, tiptoeing around the issue of the basic fundamental absolute truth which is: Human life is sacred or in other words, human life is worthy of profound respect. ???

I’ll tell you why we are tiptoeing around the issue :

Because in this thread we have assumed a secular view, and outside of religious or “higher” meaning, human life is NOT sacred…

Playing the devils advocate here: Can you tell me why on earth I should think human life is sacred, but tell me that without invoking a G-d of any kind?

I think you already understand the diffculty of that task^

Regards,
William

 

[williamric]

To all who have responded to me, I’m sorry but I am about to enter another school week, this one happening to involve finals. I can return to this after said finals, but while I am absent please at least peruse this link:

atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/AtheistsMorals.htm

Thanks everybody! And I will discuss stuff later : ).

No problem, I’m off to work now anyway

 

[Dameedna]

But why do we put them in jail? Where did this come from?

We put them in jail, to protect the rest of us, and our desire to protect our lives comes from our biology just like all animals.

Common sense would tell us:

If we all run around killing each other, then we spend our lives defending our lives and not living.

If we all run around lying, then we spend our lives mistrusting each other and lying back instead of living.

Animals, without a soul or a self-aware mechanism, have a system of reward and punishment for that which betters their species.

That is where it comes from. It comes from our nature, our instincts and our desire to survive in the BEST way possible.

What you have admitted is that humans have inherent value. You cannot offer objective evidence as to why you yourself have inherent value. WIthout God the strongest wins.

No, I cannot offer objective evidence. I’ve already claimed this.

Neither can you.

Where do we get this value? God’s love and love for us.

The value of human life that most people feel strongly about, can be explained through culture and evolutionary psychology.

Making a claim that it comes from God offers no actual evidence whatsoever. It’s just a claim.

 

[Dameedna]

You forgot to credit Christianity for this civilization’s steady improvement and growing more moral.

No society defined the inherent dignity of the human person before Christianity. NONE.

That, is complete nonsense.

 

[Dameedna]

All the atheists that have taken atheism to its logical conclusion have realised that there is no absolute morality in an Atheistic world…

Regards,
William

There may not be an absolute morality.

And even if there is, who is to claim they have it? Pretty much every religion out there.

I accept that there is an absolute truth to reality. But wether “morality” is part of that truth, is yet to be verified.

Our desire for moral behaviour, however can be explained through our biological nature and our cultural grounding.

What I find interesting about this whole moral debate, is that it is the reason so many seem to believe in a God.

If morality can be boilogically determined, would you still believe?

Is this not just another God of the Gaps?

 

[Dameedna]

What (other then just a personal preference/standard) makes their system right… I can tell you, nothing!

Athiests aren’t claiming their system is right. Quite the contrary. When an athiest realizes that the behaviour they hold to be correct or good, is shown to be wrong and harmful they will change their minds, and pursue a less harmful course(for the most part).

The real question is, what system, other than your personal belief that christianity is right, makes your system “absolutely right”.

I can tell you…nothing It is only right, to you and other christians.

You have no more “objective” truth or “absolute” morality than anyone else. You simply have a CLAIM that you are correct or moral because you invoke a concept(God) that can never be verified.

At least, an athiest has the capacity to admit the CHOICE on moral behaviour is theirs and the choice to admit when they are wrong and stop their behaviour.

What is to stop you doing something wrong, in the name of God? What is to stop you hurting another, in the name of God? Since it is your “absolute” then to you, anything Your god say’s is correct?And if he has apparently told your founding fathers to go into a town and kill every man woman and child…then to you, this is obviously moral. Right?

I am not afraid of the athiest, whos moral system is based on checks and balances, on observation and a humble realization that humans will get it wrong and must improve to survive.

I am MUCH more worried about the believer, who thinks their system is perfect and will stick with it out of ideological fanatasicm despite all the evidence that it is harmful.

 

[Dameedna]

As I said, for the sake of this argument, we are assuming a secular viewpoint. Morally this means the “golden rule” is king, but this is manufactured (not real) morality… A person has absolutely no moral reason to follow the golden rule.

They do however, have a rational reason to follow it.

Which brings us back to the question about Hitler… Can reason (alone) be used to condemn Hitler from a secular viewpoint?

Yes, it can.

He is assuming that a person like Hitler gives a stuff about the “golden rule”, or other similiar moral systems.

And you are confusing the concept of rational thinking, with the concept of emotions, empathy and a desire to care.

You can rationally determine wether something is right or wrong, FOR the most part. But your rational thinking, will ultimately depend on the knowlege you have, so rational thinking will alway’s be flawed wether it comes from theology, or secularism. Without being all knowing, you cannot be purely rational.

The real issue here is is not wether or not rational thinking is worthwhile and of due consideration. The catholic church agrees in rational thinking. The ISSUE, is…IS rational thinking enough of a REASON to care.

No…it is not.

This I think, is the real problem for believers about athiests.

Why care about rational thinking if not for the sake of something greater?

Is that what you are all getting at? Can we actually clarify the problem?

 

[williamric]

Athiests aren’t claiming their system is right. Quite the contrary. When an athiest realizes that the behaviour they hold to be correct or good, is shown to be wrong and harmful they will change their minds, and pursue a less harmful course(for the most part).

Maybe not in general, but in this thread an Atheist did claim that something was absolutely right, hence the context of my comment

The real question is, what system, other than your personal belief that christianity is right, makes your system “absolutely right”.

Nothing! I never claimed anything did, because this thread is about morality…

I can tell you…nothing It is only right, to you and other christians.

You have no more “objective” truth or “absolute” morality than anyone else. You simply have a CLAIM that you are correct or moral because you invoke a concept(God) that can never be verified.

Ummm… this was never about whether or not G-d exists, tihs is about morality given the existence (non-existence) of G-d… Sorry to burst your bubble but if G-d does exist then I do have objective morals because its based on something common to all men (therefore objective)… Why have you turned this into a debate about whether or not G-d exists?

At least, an athiest has the capacity to admit the CHOICE on moral behaviour is theirs and the choice to admit when they are wrong and stop their behaviour.

Christians also have this capacity…Ever heard of free-will?

What is to stop you doing something wrong, in the name of God? What is to stop you hurting another, in the name of God? Since it is your “absolute” then to you, anything Your god say’s is correct?And if he has apparently told your founding fathers to go into a town and kill every man woman and child…then to you, this is obviously moral. Right?

No, the war time commands of G-d are not moral teachings, or ethical teaching. G-d didn’t order the Isrealites to kill people because that type of behaviour is moral… He did it because it was necessary to conserve the purity of the Isrealite nation, and allow the world to eventually be saved by the messiah… Furthermore, do you have any idea of the kinds of practices these people (like Sodom) practiced?

If you had studied the Bible (or even read it) you would know that it is ordered into different themes, types of writing… The order of kill woman and children forms part of an extra-ordinary event, and is not part of orthodox Christian morality…

I am not afraid of the athiest, whos moral system is based on checks and balances, on observation and a humble realization that humans will get it wrong and must improve to survive.

I am MUCH more worried about the believer, who thinks their system is perfect and will stick with it out of ideological fanatasicm despite all the evidence that it is harmful.

What evidence? I am a faithful catholic yet I have never committed a crime, or intentionally hurt anybody in my entire life… Following the exact teaching of the church I have never committed a crime or hurt anyone, now tell me whats harmful about my beliefs?

 

[williamric]

They do however, have a rational reason to follow it.

Yes, it can.

And you are confusing the concept of rational thinking, with the concept of emotions, empathy and a desire to care.

You can rationally determine wether something is right or wrong, FOR the most part. But your rational thinking, will ultimately depend on the knowlege you have.

The real issue here is, IS rational thinking enough of a REASON to care.

No…it is not.

Your REASON is God. The athiests reason is not, which is why they are so confusing to the non-believer.

Why care about rational thinking if not for the sake of something greater?

Is that what you are all getting at? Can we actually clarify the problem?

I think you get it, not sure… Again, you are saying that reason (the golden rule) can be used to determine whether or not Hitler was right or wrong. But what you are not realising is that “right” and “wrong” (in a secular context) are just arbitrary standards.

Morality (in the sense I am defining it, and how I think you are defining it, i.e. objectively) requires a moral obligation, reason does not iimpart an obligation…

You are making an objective statement: That reason can decipher that what Hitler did was definitely wrong…but as I said, reason doesn’t impart an obligation, therefore you cannot claim that what Hitler did was wrong… You can claim it was unreasonable based on the golden rule, but thats about it…

Why should Hitler care about the golden rule?

 

[Dameedna]

Maybe not in general, but in this thread an Atheist did claim that something was absolutely right, hence the context of my comment

Yes, and after many discusions with Catholics I agree. An athiest, cannot claim they are absolutely right, unless they are talking about verifiable scientific data, which…no matter how we look at it…depends on a certain “faith” in human observation.

Ummm… this was never about whether or not G-d exists, tihs is about morality given the existence (non-existence) of G-d… Sorry to burst your bubble but if G-d does exist then I do have objective morals because its based on something common to all men (therefore objective)… Why have you turned this into a debate about whether or not G-d exists?

I have never turned this into a debate about wether or not God exists.

No, the war time commands of G-d are not moral teachings, or ethical teaching. G-d didn’t order the Isrealites to kill people because that type of behaviour is moral… He did it because it was necessary to conserve the purity of the Isrealite nation, and allow the world to eventually be saved by the messiah… Furthermore, do you have any idea of the kinds of practices these people (like Sodom) practiced?

This is a story, in a book. And the authors of that book, make a claim. God told them to go and kill another group of humans.

In another book, which also claims to be the word or inspired by god, also claims that murder is wrong, unless God allows the killing. And in this book, God allows…no recommends in certain circumstances the killng of infidels because it purifies their society and ultimately the world of evil.

You may begin to see the problem I have, with a book that claims a truth about god, and then claims that humans can be inspired by God, or told by God to kill. A god that commands other’s to kill, then commands them murder is wrong…

…gives us no ability to verify…wether or not the killing was “commanded” by God, or just claimed to be commanded and hence murder.

The logical conclusion to this is, God…would never command it.

What evidence? I am a faithful catholic yet I have never committed a crime, or intentionally hurt anybody in my entire life… Following the exact teaching of the church I have never committed a crime or hurt anyone, now tell me whats harmful about my beliefs?

If you believe you’ve never hurt another, and if you believe by following your religion you’ve done it all right, then were is the self-reflection required to determine your own behaviour?

In other words, believing that you have done the right thing because a church has told you so, doesn’t mean you have and leads to a form of moral realitism that is based purely on your personal beleifs. No evidence is required.

You are right to be worried by moral relativism if it is in the form you follow. You believe, your church is correct. YOU believe it. Nothing else matters.

 

[Dameedna]

I think you get it, not sure… Again, you are saying that reason (the golden rule) can be used to determine whether or not Hitler was right or wrong. But what you are not realising is that “right” and “wrong” (in a secular context) are just arbitrary standards.

I realise this completely.

Morality (in the sense I am defining it, and how I think you are defining it, i.e. objectively) requires a moral obligation, reason does not iimpart an obligation…

Yes, I understand that too.

You are making an objective statement: That reason can decipher that what Hitler did was definitely wrong…but as I said, reason doesn’t impart an obligation, therefore you cannot claim that what Hitler did was wrong… You can claim it was unreasonable based on the golden rule, but thats about it…

I agree.

Why should Hitler care about the golden rule?

I can’t determine what another should or should not do. Should, is a word used to describe our desire to control another(and if you say it TO another person to often, it can lead to depression…bad bad word to use unless you use it carefully).

Hitler, did not care about the golden rule. And he felt, he had no reason to.

This is your concern. Rational thinking, isn’t enough to drive better or at least “good” human behaviour.

I think you are right.

Your answer to the problem, is what I disagree with

 

[williamric]

Hi Dameedna,

I’m gonna combine both the posts so we get onto one track… I’ll only use the end of your lastest comment…

Yes, and after many discusions with Catholics I agree. An athiest, cannot claim they are absolutely right, unless they are talking about verifiable scientific data, which…no matter how we look at it…depends on a certain “faith” in human observation.

I have never turned this into a debate about wether or not God exists.

Okay, fair enough…

This is a story, in a book. And the authors of that book, make a claim. God told them to go and kill another group of humans.

In another book, which also claims to be the word or inspired by god, also claims that murder is wrong, unless God allows the killing. And in this book, God allows…no recommends in certain circumstances the killng of infidels because it purifies their society and ultimately the world of evil.

You may begin to see the problem I have, with a book that claims a truth about god, and then claims that humans can be inspired by God, or told by God to kill. A god that commands other’s to kill, then commands them murder is wrong…

…gives us no ability to verify…wether or not the killing was “commanded” by God, or just claimed to be commanded and hence murder.

The logical conclusion to this is, God…would never command it.

Well I’m glad you have made the distinction between murder and killing… For the record the Bible never forbids killing, it forbids murder… You have pointed out an apparent inconsistency, and I have no problem with you questioning like this, because discernment is (or should be) a natural part of human nature… However, let me point out that this is not an inconsistency, for the reason stated above:
G-d never once commands someone to murder, He does command someone to kill which implies a reason, or a justification for the killing. It is not logical to conclude that G-d would never command killing since the Isrealites lives in consist danger of extermination. G-d took the steps required to preserve His teaching because it needed to be preserved to fulfill the conditions required for the savior and ultimately to save mankind. Contrary to popular implications, the people the Isrealites exterminated were not innocent pacifists… They all had committed horrendous crimes against humanity, often had repeatedly attacked the Isrealites, and had ignored several warnings from G-d… Furthermore, it was better (from an eternal) perspective for the children to be killed before the age of reason, and before they joined the sinful practices which would have ultimately lead to their judgment.

If you believe you’ve never hurt another, and if you believe by following your religion you’ve done it all right, then were is the self-reflection required to determine your own behaviour?

In other words, believing that you have done the right thing because a church has told you so, doesn’t mean you have and leads to a form of moral realitism that is based purely on your personal beleifs. No evidence is required.

You are right to be worried by moral relativism if it is in the form you follow. You believe, your church is correct. YOU believe it. Nothing else matters.

No No, that is not what I meant! I meant I have not purposefully physically harmed someone, something that is very easy to verify… If I have harmed someone on purpose but don’t know about it then I’d be seriously worried about my sanity

Being Christian does not excuse one from contemplating their behavior and reflecting on the possible negative impacts our actions might have had on someone. In fact, when Catholics go to confession, we examine our consciences (and we are instructed to examine our conscience at Mass). This involves us silently reflecting whilst all number of wrongful behaviours are read out and we decide whether we are guilty of that behavior. Furthermore, the Golden rule was the central teaching in Jesus’s sermon on personal morality…

Your answer to the problem, is what I disagree with

I assume this is largely to do with the generic criticisms about the holy wars etc…

I wasn’t really concerned in my replies about establishing an absolute case for Christian morality but with establishing the fact that:

1. Objective secular morals do not exist and,
2. Christianity’s (assuming its true for arguments sake) morality is objective because it is believed to be written on ALL mans hearts.

Therefore, I can say that what Hitler did was wrong and be consistent with my beliefs, but an Atheist cannot condmen Hitler and be consistent… doesn’t mean Christianity is right, just to do with morality

Regards,
William

 

[PRmerger]

and which society decides? or do you mean that the subjective morality of each society is the objective morality, but you mean it locally, as in only for that society, and if so. how is that not moral relativism? each society deeming what is moral for itself in its unique situation, is moral relativism by definition.

Yup. And what is society except a bunch of individuals like myself? What gives a bunch of individuals the power to decide what’s moral or not?

What gives them more superiority collectively than individually?

 

[Dameedna]

G-d never once commands someone to murder, He does command someone to kill which implies a reason, or a justification for the killing.

At this point, I want to make a very clear distinction.

There is a book, that claims God commanded something.

And then…there is God whatever he/she/it may be. Let’s presume, he exists.

It is not logical to conclude that G-d would never command killing since the Isrealites lives in consist danger of extermination.

This makes an assumption by default, that God wanted the Israelite to live more than another group.Why would you believe this?

Because they told you? It is an assumption made BY the Israelites because THEY decided God chose them. It is not suprising they decided they were Gods chosen and they were not the first to do so. As the world show’s us today, they will not be the last.

Anyone else, can make the same claim to “God’s special treatment”. The question is…why do you believe them over any other?

G-d took the steps required to preserve His teaching because it needed to be preserved to fulfill the conditions required for the savior and ultimately to save mankind.

You are starting to build a “logical” argument, on a premise made by human beings.

#1 premise. Humans needed savng
#2 premise. The Israelites were the chosen people(a claim made by…of course the Israelites)
#3. God, could not teach anyone but the Israelites.

4 And that God, was willing them to kill other’s to preserve the Israelites, which suited the Israelites survival instince and purposes…to the letter.​

Isn’t it amazing, that a tribe of humans who wanted to survive, found a God, who agreed with them?

Other’s can make the same claim, and they sound awefully, awefully human when they do.

Contrary to popular implications, the people the Isrealites exterminated were not innocent pacifists… They all had committed horrendous crimes against humanity, often had repeatedly attacked the Isrealites, and had ignored several warnings from G-d

Several warnings from God? According to who? The Israelites?

Furthermore, it was better (from an eternal) perspective for the children to be killed before the age of reason, and before they joined the sinful practices which would have ultimately lead to their judgment.

Oh dear.

So God would be better off allowing the killing of his children before they sinned and were judged.

The real question is, why did God, not kill EVERYONE before they sinned?

Why…did God create any of us, knowing we would sin and therefore end up in hell, and choose these “specific” children, to die(and hence be saved) before they could choose?

If it is true, that God will kill a child so they can not be judged badly, then why didn’t God grant me that favour so I could go to heaven?

I have not purposefully physically harmed someone, something that is very easy to verify

This is not actually the claim to fame that people make it out to be. I would like to think, that the only way I ever hurt another is because I chose to.

That’s my point. You may have never “purposefully” harmed some-one, but until you can accept you WILL harm some-one through your own failings you will never self-analzye your behavoiur and therefore, will hurt people.

Being Christian does not excuse one from contemplating their behavior and reflecting on the possible negative impacts our actions might have had on someone. In fact, when Catholics go to confession, we examine our consciences (and we are instructed to examine our conscience at Mass). This involves us silently reflecting whilst all number of wrongful behaviours are read out and we decide whether we are guilty of that behavior. Furthermore, the Golden rule was the central teaching in Jesus’s sermon on personal morality…

This is not the issue. The issue is, a blind obediance to a church that tells you what is or is not wrong.

If you BELIEVE the church is alway’s right why would you ever question your own behaviour and see for yourself, you are hurting people?

1. Objective secular morals do not exist and,
2. Christianity’s (assuming its true for arguments sake) morality is objective because it is believed to be written on ALL mans hearts.

One cannot assume christianity is true.

They can only believe it.

Therefore, I can say that what Hitler did was wrong and be consistent with my beliefs, but an Atheist cannot condmen Hitler and be consistent… doesn’t mean Christianity is right, just to do with morality

I can and do insist that hitler was wrong rationally. You can only condem what hitler was wrong as a result of YOUR personal beliefs.

How can your personal views on things, beat rational thinking?

Who are you to “believe” that something is right or wrong?

I’m not having a go at you, even if it sounds like that. I get the impression that because you believe something, you think it is therefore truth.

That…is the problem with faith.

 

[Leela]

Short answer: Love is to look on another person not simply with my eyes and my feelings, but from the perspective of Jesus Christ. His friend is my friend. Going beyond exterior appearances.

Long answer: here: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

I think that to love someone means that their happiness is essential to your own.

Best,
Leela

 

[Dameedna]

I think that to love someone means that their happiness is essential to your own.

Best,
Leela

No, I think that to love someone, is to say that their happiness, is more important than your own.

 

[williamric]

At this point, I want to make a very clear distinction.

There is a book, that claims God commanded something.
And then…there is God whatever he/she/it may be. Let’s presume, he exists.

Well you say lets presume He exists but then in the rest of your reply you forget that assumption … As I said earlier I am not trying to build an objective case from Catholic morality, I am trying to demonstrate that taken in the context of the Catholic worldview, the morality is consistent and your criticism about the killing of other tribes is not valid… An apparent inconsistency is something that needs be discussed under the assumption that the religion in question is valid…

This makes an assumption by default, that God wanted the Israelite to live more than another group.Why would you believe this?

Because they told you? It is an assumption made BY the Israelites because THEY decided God chose them. It is not suprising they decided they were Gods chosen and they were not the first to do so. As the world show’s us today, they will not be the last.

But you have also made an assumption… You have assumed that G-d didnt choose them…

Anyone else, can make the same claim to “God’s special treatment”. The question is…why do you believe them over any other?

Honestly, this has nothing to do with Christianity as a moral system… Whilst this is a valid criticism when discussing the reasons for believing in Christianity, this doesn’t show Christian morals to be inconsistent which is what I thought you were talking about…

You are starting to build a “logical” argument, on a premise made by human beings.

#1 premise. Humans needed savng
#2 premise. The Israelites were the chosen people(a claim made by…of course the Israelites)
#3. God, could not teach anyone but the Israelites.

4 And that God, was willing them to kill other’s to preserve the Israelites, which suited the Israelites survival instince and purposes…to the letter.​

No, I built a logical argument about Christian morality based on surprise surprise, Christainity

Isn’t it amazing, that a tribe of humans who wanted to survive, found a God, who agreed with them?

Other’s can make the same claim, and they sound awefully, awefully human when they do.

This would be a valid criticism if genecide was a “normal” moral practice for the Isrealites… Well it wasn’t, it was extra-ordinary events… In truth Juduaism has a very sound ethical system.

Several warnings from God? According to who? The Israelites?

It seems you are willing to accept a Biblical teaching on face value if it undermines G-d… i.e. you were quite happy with the whole “G-d ordered killing”, but now that this command is qualified you all of a sudden no longer have faith in the Jewish writing… If so have so little faith in the accuracy of Hebrew scripture, why do you believe that the Jews committed genocide at all?

Oh dear.

So God would be better off allowing the killing of his children before they sinned and were judged.

The real question is, why did God, not kill EVERYONE before they sinned?

Because then only one generation of man would have ever existed… Don’t you see how absurd the bold is? How could any one then reproduce?

Why…did God create any of us, knowing we would sin and therefore end up in hell, and choose these “specific” children, to die(and hence be saved) before they could choose?

If it is true, that God will kill a child so they can not be judged badly, then why didn’t God grant me that favour so I could go to heaven?

Because G-d killed the children for a reason, i.e. to preserve the messianic line… If he ordered me to kill you that would be murder since there is no reason for me to kill you… He doesn’t use killing for the primary reason of sidestepping your free-will… Its merely a coincidence that those children were killed…

This is not actually the claim to fame that people make it out to be. I would like to think, that the only way I ever hurt another is because I chose to.

That’s my point. You may have never “purposefully” harmed some-one, but until you can accept you WILL harm some-one through your own failings you will never self-analzye your behavoiur and therefore, will hurt people.

Oh please…lol… Of course, I have hurt people through my words, as has every other person in the world, including Atheists… I wasn’t trying to deny that, but since you implied that Catholicism is a hurtful system, I was trying to point out that nothing about Catholicism is purposefully hurtful to individuals… I wasn’t trying to imply I has never sinned. Christians are just as moral as Atheists…

I can and do insist that hitler was wrong rationally. You can only condem what hitler was wrong as a result of YOUR personal beliefs.

How can your personal views on things, beat rational thinking?

Who are you to “believe” that something is right or wrong?

I’m not having a go at you, even if it sounds like that.** I get the impression that because you believe something, you think it is therefore truth**.

That…is the problem with faith.

I have already conceded the top bold (about 3 times so far actually ) but again the context of this statement was the direction the thread was taking… It took the direction that because Hitler might have been wrong rationally (debatable buts lets not go there) that this therefore allows the Atheist to say he was wrong morally. You have already conceded this point

Bottom bold: Well that impression is entirely of your own making… I was merely addressing the apparent biblical inconsistency…

Who are you to “believe” that something is right or wrong?

I could ask you that

Regards,
William

 

[Leela]

We could of course say that the actions of Hitler were not beneficial to society (He would probably argue with that), but in the context of this thread we were talking about an absolute right and wrong.

Hitler would have indeed argued with that. In fact, all we have ever been able to is argue for our own ideas about morality. If we can draw any moral from the history of philosophy it is that the project of trying to find conversation ending foundations has failed, and we should move the conversation forward by talking about justification instead of knowledge. For example, what is it that you think you can say to a Hitler to convince him he is wrong that a pragmatist like myself can’t say?

Whilst it makes sense to act in a beneficial way, there is no moral obligation to act in such a way. This is because, as Leela said, “good” becomes an arbitrary subjective concept.

This is the conclusion you drew from what I said, but I would never say that morality is an arbitrary subjective concept. Human flourishing is about as arbitary and subjective as life and death. Is murder, rape, and lawlessness in general merely arbitrarliy and subjectively bad for humanity or is it actually bad for humanity?

Hi William,

Picture this situation, it’s you and Hitler in a room and you are trying to convince him against the war. You will say something similar to what you have said, it (the war) is not beneficial etc, but at the end of the day, if you cannot invoke a “higher” morality then you have not ever given Hitler an obligation to act according to your standards.

Do you think that Hitler would be any more swayed by the argument that you think that God wouldn’t like it? Even if you think that you really have knowledge of what God wants, aren’t we still always dealing with justification when trying to convince someone else? It seems to me whether or not you hold your moral truths to be absolute or not, you still need to justify them to others in the usual ways.

Best,
Leela

 

[Fran65]

You (dameedna) think that the only way you hurt others is by choosing to?

I would laugh, only, that’s not funny.

 

[Fran65]

Nothing wrong with trying to be good.

Those who try to be good should be applauded.

But why do those who are atheist insist on trying to argue those who are not out of faith?