'Duck Dynasty' Star Imagines Vivid Rape And Murder Scenario For Atheist Family

[Mike_from_NJ]

So what system of ethics do you propose? Social contract? Utilitarianism? His hypothetical would need little modification to reveal the inadequacy of such systems.

Not all non-believers go about building their moral foundations the same way. I’m not a Humanist per se, but I do like the general ideas presented in their manifesto:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of evolutionary change, an unguided process.
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.
Respect for differing yet humane views in an open, secular, democratic, environmentally sustainable society

But like I said different people do things different ways. There is no set defining system an atheist must or will use. Phil’s problem (or more accurately, one of his far-too-many-to-count problems) is that he believes an atheist is completely incapable of being moral without Jesus. That is simply not true.

 

[Seraphignatius]

I’m not a Humanist per se, but I do like the general ideas presented in their manifesto:

Well, leaving your true position undefined and hidden in the shadows makes it difficult indeed to consider and evaluate. We can at least consider and evaluate the points you bring up which you like, but may or may not subscribe to.

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

You’re practically an Aristotelian so far.

Humans are an integral part of nature,

With you still.

the result of evolutionary change,

Still internally consistent at least.

an unguided process.

Is this Point derived from observation, experimentation and rational analysis? It would seem curiously difficult to prove by those methods, but I digress.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.

So what if the sociopaths in question couldn’t give two flips about the needs and interests of humanity in general, but only of some subset? (Like themselves, their families and their friends.)

Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.

What is life’s fulfillment? What of those who don’t care for it?

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.

Yes to some extent, but being social includes having enemies as a society. Nazi’s were socially committed to the extermination of the Jews who were a clear threat (in their eyes) to their society and it’s meaningful relationships.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

Who decides what benefits society? (See the Nazi example above.)

Respect for differing yet humane views in an open, secular, democratic, environmentally sustainable society

Wow This is a big one. Who decides what is a humane view? Margaret Sanger thought that the only humane thing to do was to rid society of “human weeds” like poor people, non whites, the handicapped, and I assume the Jews were probably on her list as well. There seems to be lots of room for disagreement on your other qualities for a good society as well. (Leaving aside that we still haven’t supported any of those qualities through observation, experimentation and rational analysis.)

But like I said different people do things different ways.

Like the Nazi’s.

There is no set defining system an atheist must or will use.

So there is no objective right or wrong and Phil’s molested atheist merely has a legitimate philosophical disagreement with the sociopaths? Do you accept that you have implied that is the case, or are you at least prepared to show that it isn’t?

Phil’s problem (or more accurately, one of his far-too-many-to-count problems) is that he believes an atheist is completely incapable of being moral without Jesus. That is simply not true.

I don’t think you have quite seen what Phil was driving at.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

So what if the sociopaths in question couldn’t give two flips about the needs and interests of humanity in general, but only of some subset? (Like themselves, their families and their friends.)

Phil’s ignorant tirade is not about the sociopaths but about the position of the husband and father and whether he can consider whether it was wrong. Non-sociopaths take into account the feeling of others, not just themselves or a subset of the people in any scenario.

What is life’s fulfillment? What of those who don’t care for it?

I didn’t write the manifesto, but I personally would be fulfilled if I know that I prevented evil and did good for myself and others.

Yes to some extent, but being social includes having enemies as a society.

Incorrect!

Nazi’s were socially committed to the extermination of the Jews who were a clear threat (in their eyes) to their society and it’s meaningful relationships.

So we know that those people are only taking into consideration only a small portion of humanity. A true moral person considers the lives of all others. That’s why Nazis were not moral by any measure.

Who decides what benefits society? (See the Nazi example above.)

What good comes from the murder of the Jews? What good comes from the slaughter of Waldensians or Cathars? Why should heretics be burned? Do you honestly need someone to tell you that the death of another person requires an incredible reason for it to be moral?

And let’s not try to separate Catholics entirely from Nazis. Some were not but there were plenty that fit into both categories.

Wow This is a big one. Who decides what is a humane view? Margaret Sanger thought that the only humane thing to do was to rid society of “human weeds” like poor people, non whites, the handicapped, and I assume the Jews were probably on her list as well. There seems to be lots of room for disagreement on your other qualities for a good society as well. (Leaving aside that we still haven’t supported any of those qualities through observation, experimentation and rational analysis.)

Eugnecists are not moral because they give no good reason to kill. There is obviously some disagreement between nonbelievers, but at least it gives room to assess all variables in a way that a believer can’t. So when a doctrine of a faith is morally reprehensible the believer is stuck defending immorality.

So there is no objective right or wrong and Phil’s molested atheist merely has a legitimate philosophical disagreement with the sociopaths?

Show me where a person taking into account the rights and feelings of others has ever said that people have the right to rape someone else. A reasonable person weighs the rights of the person wanting to rape someone versus the rights of the person who doesn’t want to be raped. and the scales ALWAYS lean towards the victim in that case. I mean are you being serious that someone needs Jesus to say that raping someone is wrong?

And if you want to see Catholics defending tooth and nail a father sending his daughters to be raped, you can check it out here.

Do you accept that you have implied that is the case, or are you at least prepared to show that it isn’t?

Just because you can’t understand that atheists can assess morality by striving to increase compassion and reduce hatred and violence doesn’t mean it’s not true.

I don’t think you have quite seen what Phil was driving at.

I do, and it’s the sign of a sick and depraved mind.

 

[on_the_hill]

Um…this is man people look up to because……he’s a reality show celebrity…

 

[Midwest88]

Um…this is man people look up to because……he’s a reality show celebrity…

Who said people look up to him? Th media is bringing attention to his speech. We’re commenting on it and figuring out whether what he said had any substance in terms of ethics and morals when there is no God.

 

[MarcoPolo]

he believes an atheist is completely incapable of being moral without Jesus. That is simply not true.

Actually doesn’t his last sentence quoted in the OP say that even atheists recognize wrong?

What I like about dialogue with atheistic morality is the atheist’s appeal to some sort of proper due because of their “humanity,” like “human need,” and stuff like that. It’s the recognition of the natural law, that there is a proper order with regard to being human…

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Actually doesn’t his last sentence quoted in the OP say that even atheists recognize wrong?

Yes and what he is saying is that there is a disconnect between knowing what is wrong and having a moral structure stating why something is wrong. He is saying that atheists have no groundwork for morality. He and anyone who says that is quite wrong.

I’ve shown that morals can be derived without the need of any person’s version of a god by being compassionate and by taking into account how one’s actions can affect others.

Whether Phil felt some sort of giddyness at the thought of an atheist man having his family brutalized is still up for debate.

 

[on_the_hill]

Who said people look up to him? Th media is bringing attention to his speech. We’re commenting on it and figuring out whether what he said had any substance in terms of ethics and morals when there is no God.

Not saying people here look up to him, but he is a hero to many. As for whether or not there’s any substance to what he has to say…that’s a waste of time.

 

[Seraphignatius]

Phil’s ignorant tirade is not about the sociopaths but about the position of the husband and father and whether he can consider whether it was wrong. Non-sociopaths take into account the feeling of others, not just themselves or a subset of the people in any scenario.

Perhaps, but Sociopaths don’t. Why are they wrong?

I didn’t write the manifesto, but I personally would be fulfilled if I know that I prevented evil and did good for myself and others.

We are still discussing the rational basis and definition of Good and Evil, so this is begging the question.

Incorrect!

Incorrect, yourself. If we form a society we get enemies, both foreign and domestic, as part of the deal. Criminals, for instance, are enemies of social order.

So we know that those people are only taking into consideration only a small portion of humanity. A true moral person considers the lives of all others.

Why? Where do you get this principal from?

What good comes from the murder of the Jews? …]

IIRC They believed that Jews were genetically predisposed to evil, institutionally oppressive of the poor and were corrupting the master race by spreading their inferior genes through it like a virus.

Do you honestly need someone to tell you that the death of another person requires an incredible reason for it to be moral?

Well, if I am the result of an unguided evolutionary process what importance does an instinctive revulsion towards murder hold? The point of Phil’s crude parable is that everyone knows murder is evil, but an atheist has no rational reason why. He has plenty of emotional reason, but that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy mixed up world of ours.

And let’s not try to separate Catholics entirely from Nazis. Some were not but there were plenty that fit into both categories.

And Leninism is an explicitly and fundamentally atheist ideology. I wouldn’t recommend playing guilt by association; the last century has left the atheist brandname pretty tarnished. Besides, mudslinging is fairly unattractive.

Eugnecists are not moral because they give no good reason to kill.

What if they aren’t really killing people per se? What if it was a sub human negro (see Dred Scott) or a meaningless blob of tissue( see roe v wade)? What if they were only sterilizing rather than killing? Why does one need a “good reason” to kill if he is so inclined? What even constitutes a good reason?

There is obviously some disagreement between nonbelievers, but at least it gives room to assess all variables in a way that a believer can’t. So when a doctrine of a faith is morally reprehensible the believer is stuck defending immorality.

Modern atheism has thusfar proved wholly unable to demonstrate that there is an immorality for your believer to defend.

Show me where a person taking into account the rights and feelings of others has ever said that people have the right to rape someone else.

Dred Scott Vs. Sandford seemed to imply it. Clearly, if the slave is private property, then the master could use her as he see’s fit and she would have no right to complain. NB that the reasoning for the Dred Scott decision was rooted in the slaveholders property rights.

A reasonable person weighs the rights of the person wanting to rape someone versus the rights of the person who doesn’t want to be raped. and the scales ALWAYS lean towards the victim in that case.

A reasonable person knows that God is a logical necessity, yet my statement has no more proved the existence of God than yours has proved the existence of good and evil.

I mean are you being serious that someone needs Jesus to say that raping someone is wrong?

Not Jesus necessarily, but without at least the philosophical God of Plato and Aristotle or some meaningful end to which men are ordered one has no more reason to affirm the authority of one’s instinct against murder any more than the authority of one’s instinct to religion or to murder those with whom you are angry. (Is extreme anger a good reason to kill?)

And if you want to see Catholics defending tooth and nail a father sending his daughters to be raped, you can check it out here.

It is rather off topic; I don’t recall asking to see that.

Just because you can’t understand that atheists can assess morality by striving to increase compassion and reduce hatred and violence doesn’t mean it’s not true.

Why are hatred and violence bad? Why is compassion good? You and I know they are, but I know why. If we are meaningless how can our actions have meaning one way or another? Atheism is inherently hopeless and meaningless, yet atheists don’t want to admit it because they know they have meaning and they want to have hope.

I do, and it’s the sign of a sick and depraved mind.

Well then I wouldn’t worry about it. One day he’ll be dead and so will you and I, and eventually the the sun itself too will die. Who will remember then the deeds of a few infinitesimal organisms which are here one day and gone the next? Why should anyone pay anymore notice to the death of a man than to the death of the yeast with which we make our bread? Vanity of vanity and all is vanity.

 

[Midwest88]

Not saying people here look up to him, but he is a hero to many. As for whether or not there’s any substance to what he has to say…that’s a waste of time.

I disagree that it’s a waste of time. It’s a rather interesting challenge for non-believers, believers and anyone in between since it brings up the question of where ones morality and ethics come from. Is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ derived from God, and given human intellect can we figure these ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’? If there is no God where does it come from and who are the “officials” that spell out these ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs.’ If there is no God man is left to determine what is 'right and ‘wrong’, but that leaves open why one man should respect the ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ of another. It’s a classic question, really. It makes no difference if celebrity tv star brings it up or a respected atheist or theologian.

 

[AyJSimon]

I disagree that it’s a waste of time. It’s a rather interesting challenge for non-believers, believers and anyone in between since it brings up the question of where ones morality and ethics come from. Is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ derived from God, and given human intellect can we figure these ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’? If there is no God where does it come from and who are the “officials” that spell out these ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs.’ If there is no God man is left to determine what is 'right and ‘wrong’, but that leaves open why one man should respect the ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ of another. It’s a classic question, really. It makes no difference if celebrity tv star brings it up or a respected atheist or theologian.

You might ask yourself, how is the basis of knowledge for any field of inquiry determined? For example, “Biology” is generally defined as “the study of life.” But who, or what central authority determined that for us? What if I just decided, on my own initiative, to redefine biology as “the study of chess?” Since no central, transcendent authority ever told us that biology was the study of life, isn’t my definition of biology just as sound? Who has any sort of standing to assert that biology isn’t “the study of chess?”

The point is, even in a world with God, the parameters of most fields of knowledge are defined by man, and yet, nobody is obligated to respect the views of a man who just “decided” to re-define biology on his whim. It seems to me that we can treat morality the same way. A basis for determining what is moral can be decided easily enough, without reference to God. And assuming our basis survives scrutiny, we’ll easily dismiss the views of others who try to play the game of redefining it, on the presumption that one man’s views are intrinsically equal to every other man’s views.

 

[Seraphignatius]

You might ask yourself, how is the basis of knowledge for any field of inquiry determined? For example, “Biology” is generally defined as “the study of life.” But who, or what central authority determined that for us? What if I just decided, on my own initiative, to redefine biology as “the study of chess?” Since no central, transcendent authority ever told us that biology was the study of life, isn’t my definition of biology just as sound? Who has any sort of standing to assert that biology isn’t “the study of chess?”

The point is, even in a world with God, the parameters of most fields of knowledge are defined by man, and yet, nobody is obligated to respect the views of a man who just “decided” to re-define biology on his whim. It seems to me that we can treat morality the same way. A basis for determining what is moral can be decided easily enough, without reference to God. And assuming our basis survives scrutiny, we’ll easily dismiss the views of others who try to play the game of redefining it, on the presumption that one man’s views are intrinsically equal to every other man’s views.

If we were merely discussing what to call things then you would have a point, but what we are discussing is:
I. Whether there are objectively Good things which a person ought to do simply because they are Good.
II. Whether there are objectively Evil things which a person ought not do simply on the grounds that they are Evil.
III. If either or both of the prior two questions are answered in the affirmative (as Mike from NJ does) Why (in the absence of belief in God) are some things Good and to be done and others Evil and not to be done.

We aren’t merely playing Lewis Carol’s Humpty Dumpty; we are discussing ethical philosophy.

 

[AyJSimon]

If we were merely discussing what to call things then you would have a point, but what we are discussing is:
I. Whether there are objectively Good things which a person ought to do simply because they are Good.
II. Whether there are objectively Evil things which a person ought not do simply on the grounds that they are Evil.
III. If either or both of the prior two questions are answered in the affirmative (as Mike from NJ does) Why (in the absence of belief in God) are some things Good and to be done and others Evil and not to be done.

We aren’t merely playing Lewis Carol’s Humpty Dumpty; we are discussing ethical philosophy.

The distinction you see between ethical philosophy and “what to call things” is illusory. Both reduce to the same questions, and that’s ultimately why Phil Robertson’s point is inane. We don’t need a transcendent authority to determine an objective basis for telling right from wrong, any more than we need one to determine the definition of biology, or the goal of the science of medicine.

 

[Seraphignatius]

The distinction you see between ethical philosophy and “what to call things” is illusory. Both reduce to the same questions, and that’s ultimately why Phil Robertson’s point is inane. We don’t need a transcendent authority to determine an objective basis for telling right from wrong, any more than we need one to determine the definition of biology, or the goal of the science of medicine.

Now who is playing Humpty Dumpty? There is a difference between applying a meaningless label to something and saying something substantial about that thing. You are welcome to join the conversation, but you won’t get far trying to convince us that we are merely shuffling labels.

P.S. The question is less a matter of transcendent authority and more a matter of purpose. If we have no objective purpose inherent in us, then there cannot be actions which conform with or violate our purpose. If there is no objective ideal for us to conform with then there is no good to strive for and no evil which deprives us of an ideal.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I haven’t read the entire thread.

I don’t watch Duck Dynasty, I have no clue what the show is about, except that the men in the show sport long beards, and ducks are some how involved.

The event was a prayer breakfast. I haven’t been to a prayer breakfast (I’ve been to breakfast at my parish after morning mass many times).

I have been to religious conferences and listened to various speakers. I’ve heard Immaculée Ilibagiza speak of actual atrocities that happened to her and her family in Rwanda.

I would assume that at a prayer breakfast one would have breakfast and listen to speakers speak about God, and prayers would be said.

I have read this hypothetical scenario a few times. I honestly cannot figure out what the point was.

It was in poor taste. It was needlessly graphic, especially in the description of the treatment of the little girls.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’ve shown that morals can be derived without the need of any person’s version of a god by being compassionate and by taking into account how one’s actions can affect others.

Sort of, but not really - because you’ve made an appeal to “humanness” itself, which is simply the substitute barometer for a “god.” Don’t get me wrong, I think the idea of attaching morals to the human condition is a great starting point. Now all we have to do is identify what it is about being human that merits a right to life, the right to property, etc… such that killing would be a moral evil or stealing would be a moral evil, etc…

I prompt this next step is because I would ask of your line of thinking above, who cares if your actions affect others? You are asserting that it is wrong to “hurt” others, right? But that assertion is gratuitous, is it not? You must have an idea in mind of why the world is properly ordered if we don’t kill or steal, etc…

 

[AyJSimon]

Now who is playing Humpty Dumpty? There is a difference between applying a meaningless label to something and saying something substantial about that thing. You are welcome to join the conversation, but you won’t get far trying to convince us that we are merely shuffling labels.

The point is that the labels aren’t meaningless. If they were meaningless, simple conversation would be impossible. If anyone could just re-define “Biology” for their own purposes, and the rest of us were required to take it seriously (because after all, who says that biology is really the study of life?), then basic communication would bog down immediately.

Therefore, it is of no particular consequence whether the basis for defining biology, or medicine, or morality, comes from man rather than a transcendent authority. What matters is whether the basis we come to can be gotten underneath, philosophically.

 

[Seraphignatius]

Therefore, it is of no particular consequence whether the basis for defining biology, or medicine, or morality, comes from man rather than a transcendent authority. What matters is whether the basis we come to can be gotten underneath, philosophically.

Biology, and medicine are studies of objectively real things, and a person making a statement in those fields can be shown to be right or wrong. Without regard to a transcendent authority, (which, taken simply, is the Divine command theory of morality; which is popular amongst Muslims, but not so much among Catholics.) what is your rational basis for objectively determining good from evil? Why is willful murder demonstrably wrong in the same sense that bones demonstrably provide structural support to our bodies? If someone asserted that bones served no such role he would be shown the error of his ways by means of observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. How does an atheist employ those same tools to convince another atheist generally in favor of incest that the latter is wrong?

 

[AyJSimon]

Biology, and medicine are studies of objectively real things, and a person making a statement in those fields can be shown to be right or wrong. Without regard to a transcendent authority, (which, taken simply, is the Divine command theory of morality; which is popular amongst Muslims, but not so much among Catholics.) what is your rational basis for objectively determining good from evil? Why is willful murder demonstrably wrong in the same sense that bones demonstrably provide structural support to our bodies? If someone asserted that bones served no such role he would be shown the error of his ways by means of observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. How does an atheist employ those same tools to convince another atheist generally in favor of incest that the latter is wrong?

The objective basis for distinguishing right from wrong is what best supports the well-being of conscious creatures.

 

[PRmerger]

The objective basis for distinguishing right from wrong is what best supports the well-being of conscious creatures.

That’s way too nebulous.

Firstly, what constitutes a conscious creature? Is a starfish conscious? What about a 38 week fetus? And if someone is unconscious, does that permit us to refuse to apply the moral law to him?

Secondly, what constitutes well being? Does it promote the well being of a person to encourage polyamory? What about giving a drug addict her drug she desperately wants? What about spanking a toddler? A teenager?