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

[AyJSimon]

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?

Generally speaking, all living creatures with an operating neurology exhibit some degree of consciousness. Plants don’t appear to have consciousness, but I am open to any evidence which suggests otherwise. Generally, our moral obligations toward other creatures scale with their ability to experience well-being/suffering, and how an act against them would affect the well-being of other conscious creatures.

For example, if you had to choose between killing a fly and painlessly killing an unconscious person, you would be morally obligated to choose killing the fly. Because the fly has less ability to experience suffering, and its death would have far less effect on other conscious creatures. The unconscious person may not be able to suffer his demise, but his death will negatively affect the well-being of others.

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?

It’s important to note that nothing about asserting this as the basis for morality guarantees that we’ll be able to answer all moral questions. In some cases, we need information that we don’t have, or can’t get. But the principle is to use the information we do have about how conscious creatures best thrive, and use that information to evaluate moral choices.

 

[PRmerger]

For example, if you had to choose between killing a fly and painlessly killing an unconscious person, you would be morally obligated to choose killing the fly.

So if you had to choose between killing a 38 week old fetus and an anesthetized 38 yr old man, you would be obligated to choose killing the man?

 

[Brendan]

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…

Actually, what you have shown is that a SET of morals can be derived from that.

Sets of morals can also be derived by taking into account one’s personal satisfaction and nothing else.

Or a set of morals can be derived by theories of racial supremacy.

What you have NOT shown is why someone should follow the particular moral guidelines that you have developed.

The criteria from your moral system was, by your own admission, arbitrary. You personally chose what was a moral good, perceived compassion.

But even that is a failed basis, as there might supposedly be someone who would consider it a compassionate act to euthanize gays, for example.

By your definition, that would be moral act, as it’s root was compassion.

 

[PRmerger]

What you have NOT shown is why someone should follow the particular moral guidelines that you have developed.

Egg-zactly.

And what he has also not shown is why he should be able to tell another person, say, a racist, that his moral code is wrong. All the racist has to do is say that he is following his own moral code and using the exact same criteria that Mike from NJ is using.

 

[AyJSimon]

So if you had to choose between killing a 38 week old fetus and an anesthetized 38 yr old man, you would be obligated to choose killing the man?

If you’re just going to ignore what I’m writing, please don’t waste everyone’s time by responding.

 

[PRmerger]

If you’re just going to ignore what I’m writing, please don’t waste everyone’s time by responding.

I have read every single word you wrote on this thread, Simon.

Could you please answer the question now?

 

[AyJSimon]

I have read every single word you wrote on this thread, Simon.

Could you please answer the question now?

I didn’t say you didn’t read it. I said you ignored it. Which you did. If you hadn’t ignored it, you’d know this was addressed.

Move along, please. Unless you’re going to be a grownup about this.

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t say you didn’t read it. I said you ignored it. Which you did. If you hadn’t ignored it, you’d know this was addressed.

Fair enough. Distinction noted.

I am not understanding how you would answer my question: is it moral to kill an anesthetized 38 yr old man, who is unconscious, over a 38 week fetus who experiences consciousness.

Could you please explain this to me further?

Move along, please. Unless you’re going to be a grownup about this.

Careful, Simon. It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

Please remember the forum rules and be more judicious about your postings.

 

[on_the_hill]

All I know is I wouldn’t invite the guy over for dinner.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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

I guess some Human Nature 101 couldn’t hurt. As species develop those traits which promote further offspring are more likely to passed on versus those that do the opposite. Cooperation is an essential component in that regard. Sociopaths can cause harm to others of this species and we know that instinctively due to the traits that we’ve devoloped from the many generations prior built right into our DNA. And this isn’t just with humans. There are other species which will exclude those members that mean to do harm to others in that group.

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

I noted that I didn’t write the manifesto and gave my read on it. But here’s the pertinent quote from the American Humanist Organization (which you can read in detail here):

“Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.”

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.

You said specifically that being social meant having enemies, then to clarify your statement you used the Nazis who sought at Jews as enemies so they could be used as a scapegoat.

Being social means that we will come across people who will have differing opinions than you, but that doesn’t make them enemies. I am friends with people from various political, religious, and social positions. We disagree but they are not my enemies, especially in the context you chose featuring one group wanting to exterminate the other.

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.

As I mentioned, you dehumanize someone and it’s easy to tilt moral quandries however way it is most convenient. I noticed you cut out the part about the Waldensians and the Cathars. Is it because who was doing the rationalization of the slaughter?

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.

I’ve explained it from a generic standpoint, from a socialogical standpoint, from a historical standpoint, and from a common sense standpoint. There isn’t just one rational reason why an atheist knows murder is evil, there are many.

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.

You were trying to draw a bright line between Catholics and Nazis and I was merely correcting you. There are good atheists. There are bad atheists. There are good Christians. There are bad Christians. Understand that I didn’t start the mudslinging and at least my mudslinging wasn’t painting entire groups of people in an overly broad brush. Also, Godwin’s Law on your very first post in the thread? That’s bad form.

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?

A good reason to kill someone would be in self-defensive or the protecting of another. Not a good reason to kill someone? Having a different concept of God, making fun a bald man, picking up sticks on Saturday, accidentally dropping a relic. I could go on but I think it’s clear once again that believing in a deity does not automatically give one a moral foundation.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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

To me immorality is an action or inaction that does undue and/or unnecessary harm to another. No gods needed.

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.

One way to sneak around the idea of determining whether one’s actions would adversely affect another is to dehumanize him or her. Don’t want to take into account how a slave would feel about being brutalized and denied freedom? Just treat that person as property and then you don’t have to concern yourself of the moral implications. People have been doing that for some time to rationalize evil. Luckily Christianity doesn’t say to treat slaves like property. Oh wait.

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.

God is not a logical necessity in the slightest. I’m not looking to disprove your interpretation of god nor any one else’s. I just want to show that one can be moral without a god,
and that having a god certainly does not automatically make one moral (and can at times hinder it).

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?)

Again, you’re assuming that an authority above humanity is necessary to affirm. Humanity can use what we know about human nature, history, and compassion in trying to find whether an act is moral or not. We can decide what harm or help we do to ourselves and others if we commit to an act and compare it to other possible actions or inaction. It’s something we do all the time, often subconciously.

“Is extreme anger a good reason to kill?” Of course not. What help comes from killing a person we are angry with? We ceases dealing with that person. What harm comes from killing the person we are angry with? We have taken another human life, whose life likely touched others. We have broken the most basic social contract that humans grow up with. We have to live with the guilt of killing. It’s clear by all measures that the harm far exceeds the help when compared to all other possible actions or inaction.

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

It’s actually very much on-topic. You and Crazy Phil are saying that only through a belief in a higher power can one make a determination as to what is right and what is wrong. The tale in the Bible shows that this higher power (if real) endorses something that is clearly immoral. Thus blindly tying one’s morality behind a deity can lead one to immorality and is certainly not better than a morality based on studying history, humanity, and compassion.

I’ll ask again to anyone here:

1) What does one do when a deity is said to have commited acts that are clearly immoral? If morality can only come from believing such an entity is deciding what is right and wrong how can one speak out against that deity’s immoral actions?

2) What does one do when a religious group has commicted acts that are clearly immoral? If morality can only come from a deity and the religious group in question is said to be the proper point of interpretation for that deity’s wishes how can one speak out against that groups immoral actions?

Why are hatred and violence bad? Why is compassion good? You and I know they are, but I know why.

I’m not sure that you know why, since if your sense of what is right and wrong is similar to mine then in some ways it runs counter to what your god thinks is right and wrong.

If we are meaningless how can our actions have meaning one way or another?

Just because humanity wasn’t planned from the time of the big bang doesn’t mean that human lives are without meaning. Is your version of god meaningless because there is nothing above him?

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.

Atheism isn’t meaningless. It’s not a worldview but merely an assessment of what we think can be believed and assumed. Without a god (yours or the thousands of others) I can still have a purpose in my life. This idea that atheists are cowering from the truth is some of the silliest and unwarranted apologetics out there.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

Most people (including myself) don’t do good deeds because some talks about them or will remember them. We do them because they are good. You’re the one saying that only if there is a god or someone above humanity saying “I saw what you did and it was very good!” then all good deeds have no value. If the only reason to do something is for praise and credit than how good is it really? It’s certainly far more altruistic to do good because it’s the right thing to do than to earn a checkmark from another.

I know I’ll die and maybe humanity will move to other worlds before our sun goes nova. Who can say? I can only live within my time frame and do what is right and good. Perhaps there is a nobility to those kinds of works. People caught in a tragic situation can still extend kindness to one another even when death is imminent. I don’t know when I’ll die, just that I will and that while I exist I must to what is right and not concern myself with gold stars from my fellow man or an unseen entity. Do what’s right because it’s right and not for praise as a spoiled child would.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I think the issue with what Phil Robertson does not come from questioning how someone without a religious foundation judges their morals. It is a fair question if you’re predisposed to think that morality solely comes from a divine entity. There are two problems though:

1. He can ask the question of a non-believer’s morals without resorting to this disgusting scenario of having an atheist’s family raped. As I said before it seemed like he was taking some glee at the idea of an atheist man devestated in such a way.
2. He asks the question with smugness that only comes from unwarranted hubris. He asked the question as though non-believers would be completely unable to respond. If he had only used the internet he would have seen a multitude of different groups that have answered this question over and over from so many perspectives and far more eloquently than I can. The self-satisfied scenario would have been unnecessary after a few minutes doing a Google search.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Sort of, but not really - because you’ve made an appeal to “humanness” itself, which is simply the substitute barometer for a “god.”

I completely disagree. There is no reason to couch one’s moral barometer in terms of 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…

It’s as I described in an earlier post, it’s because of how we as a species developed. Those traits that lead us to promote the safety of our fellow man and to weed out those with sociopathic tendencies is ingrained in most of us.

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…

Compassion is in our DNA. The golden rule (which is not exclusive to Christianity) helps pass on the genes to propagate the species. You’re trying to make it seem that there is an order beyond the natural growth of humanity, and that this supposed order MUST be divinely put into motion. I see no evidence of that.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Actually, what you have shown is that a SET of morals can be derived from that.

Sets of morals can also be derived by taking into account one’s personal satisfaction and nothing else.

Or a set of morals can be derived by theories of racial supremacy.

As I mentioned in an earlier post that I recently put up, if one tips the scales when assessing human impact by dehumanizing the people in question then one is not being honest with how they judge what is right and wrong.

What you have NOT shown is why someone should follow the particular moral guidelines that you have developed.

The criteria from your moral system was, by your own admission, arbitrary. You personally chose what was a moral good, perceived compassion.

That’s not what arbitrary means. Determining how an act I do will impact someone else means looking into that person’s wants and needs. It’s only arbitrary if I choose to ignore those wants and needs at my whim.

The trouble with such a system comes when two sets of wants or needs come into conflict. Downstairs neigbor needs to practice his violin while upstairs neighbor needs to get some sleep. Compromise might be an order or the advice of someone outside the situation. It’s not a perfect system.

But remember the topic here is saying that an atheist can’t say that the rape of his family was wrong by any metric. It’s the old saying, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” No sane person would say that a person’s want to have sex with someone trumps the need of another to be safe and to not be forced upon physically or sexually.

But even that is a failed basis, as there might supposedly be someone who would consider it a compassionate act to euthanize gays, for example.

By your definition, that would be moral act, as it’s root was compassion.

That’s an odd example, since it’s your god that says to euthanize gays. As I mentioned a proper moral framework means assessing the wants and needs of others. Killing someone out of believed compassion does just the opposite.

 

[Larry1700]

If it happened to them, they probably would say, ‘something about this just ain’t right.’

This sentence clearly implies that an atheist–whom Phil (and I) believe do not acknowledge that there is a supreme, non-subjective morality–would certainly say that what just happened is clearly wrong.

I completely fail to understand how someone could conclude that he was actually calling for something like that to be done to atheists.

He was using a “parable” to explain a greater truth; there is an ultimate standard of morality, and someone who simply talks about various subjective versions of moral code would, given the right circumstances, likely come to a revelation that an incontrovertible moral code does actually exist. It was a scenario akin to the “no atheists in a foxhole” scenario.

I agree that there are less graphic scenarios he might have come up with, but with our desensitized society, perhaps this might cut through the noise and reach folks it might not otherwise reach.

As for Phil himself, the reason I like him so much is that Duck Dynasty is a show that depicts a family that strongly believes in God, has strong family ties, and refused to stop having the dinner-table prayer at the end of the show. Compare it to the many, many other shows on television, which glorify the exact opposite.

 

[PRmerger]

I could go on but I think it’s clear once again that believing in a deity does not automatically give one a moral foundation.

True, dat.

Atheists can be some of the most moral people.

But when it comes to providing apologia for their morality, they don’t have a foundation. And they certainly have no foundation when it comes to trying to dissuade someone else from their (immoral) views.

Take this parallel:
Someone who’s never taken a Calculus class may still be one of the best mathematicians intuitively.

She knows the answer because she intuitively understands the concept of change over time.

But when someone comes up with an answer different from her own, she won’t have the foundation to state, “Your answer is wrong”. When the person says, “Why is it wrong?” All she can say is, “It just is. I just know that the correct answer is C, not B”. But the other person simply has to say, “Well, I just know that the correct answer is B, not C.”

And then she’s stuck.

 

[PRmerger]

Luckily Christianity doesn’t say to treat slaves like property. Oh wait.

Perhaps if you were on a forum with fundamentalist Christians your objection would be valid.

But you ought to keep in mind that you are on a Catholic forum. Speaking with knowledgeable Catholics. As such, you would need to provide a document from the magisterium which states, “Treat slaves like property”.

We interpret the Scriptures through the lens of the Church, not through our own private interpretations. Thus, it’s inutile to take quotes from the Bible and say, “Catholics believe [A] because it’s right there in the Bible!”

 

[PRmerger]

I just want to show that one can be moral without a god,
and that having a god certainly does not automatically make one moral (and can at times hinder it).

We are agreed, save for the bolded part.

Can you give an example of how being a believer–specifically, a Catholic–can hinder one’s morality?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s as I described in an earlier post, it’s because of how we as a species developed. Those traits that lead us to promote the safety of our fellow man and to weed out those with sociopathic tendencies is ingrained in most of us.

It sounds like you’re saying that these “moral” traits which the evolutionary process developed for us are merely “helpful” for us as a species? Is that your position? These moral traits are not commandments or obligations. They are simply things we do which are helpful for the species to thrive, yes?

And why are sociopathic tendencies “ingrained in most of us”?

 

[Brendan]

As I mentioned in an earlier post that I recently put up, if one tips the scales when assessing human impact by dehumanizing the people in question then one is not being honest with how they judge what is right and wrong.

Then how does abortion factor into an atheists morality system. Most such systems that I have seen do, in fact, dehumanize what is biologically a human.

That’s not what arbitrary means. Determining how an act I do will impact someone else means looking into that person’s wants and needs. It’s only arbitrary if I choose to ignore those wants and needs at my whim.

The trouble with such a system comes when two sets of wants or needs come into conflict. Downstairs neigbor needs to practice his violin while upstairs neighbor needs to get some sleep. Compromise might be an order or the advice of someone outside the situation. It’s not a perfect system.

But remember the topic here is saying that an atheist can’t say that the rape of his family was wrong by any metric. It’s the old saying, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” No sane person would say that a person’s want to have sex with someone trumps the need of another to be safe and to not be forced upon physically or sexually.

But even that is, by definition, an arbitrary distinction. For example, Nietzsche (an atheist) considered the primary driver of humans was the will to power ( a desire to have the power to achieve our desires). The types of morality you are discussing, compassion and consideration of others, was rejected by Nietzsche as a falsehood perpetrated by the weak on the strong. The strong ( the Übermenschen) had an obligation to break free of those bonds to achevie their ambitions.

So, what you claim certainly is not universal to athiests (and we won’t even discuss Pol Pot or Che Guervera)

Each viewed what they were doing as a ‘good’, that their actions were ‘good’ and others ‘evil’.

But they choose different criteria to measure their actions. What makes your choice objectively superior, as opposed to being a personal choice.

That’s an odd example, since it’s your god that says to euthanize gays. As I mentioned a proper moral framework means assessing the wants and needs of others. Killing someone out of believed compassion does just the opposite.

What happened to Terry Shivo then, how does that factor into such an Atheist’s moral philosophy.

Or Downs children who are aborted.