If God doesn't exist, is there any point in being a good person?

[PRmerger]

The only guideline I can give you is to take others into consideration before acting and make efforts not to injure another persons health, autonomy, or other aspects of their well being and try to maintain honesty when ever possible.

There is nothing offensive in this type of guideline.

However, it doesn’t provide for the type of heroic virtue that only those who are Believers have, such as that of Maximilian Kolbe. St. Maximilian Kolbe offered his life for a complete stranger, in a Nazi concentration camp. A Jewish prisoner, a young husband and father, was being taken away to be tortured and killed, and Kolbe stepped up and offered his life for this young father.

This type of heroic virtue is not found in atheistic circles. Sadly.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There is nothing offensive in this type of guideline. However, it doesn’t provide for the type of heroic virtue that only those who are Believers have…This type of heroic virtue is not found in atheistic circles. Sadly.

A commendable act indeed. Right now the conditions under which I live are pretty calm and the trade-offs I have to consider are no where near fatal. I’ve thought about how I would act in life threatening situations but until I’m actually in one that test me in that manner I have to consider my thoughts on how I would act as nothing more than conjecture.

At the risk of appearing shallow I express that I hope to never be in a situation in which I am tested in that way.

 

[Spock]

Interesting…

So, it would seem, you’re proposing that it is a good and virtuous thing to help someone else then by feeding someone else’s meter? Why should someone do that?

It would be helping the one whose meter is about to expire. The reason? Friendship, for example. Or goodwill toward an unknown stranger. Or just defiance to thwart a dumb ordinance. What is so astonishing about helping an unknown person by dropping a few coins into a meter?

 

[Spock]

How is that so? And if so, how is it that at a arbitrary age they suddenly can?

That is the general concensus in the current era, in most of the societies. The age is definitely arbitrary. Just like with drinking alcohol. In the US it is considered OK to draft an 18 years old kid, give him a lethal weapon, train him how to use it and send him to kill or be killed. On the other hand it is NOT OK for the said 18 years old to drink a beer, or even serve an open bottle of beer in a restaurant. How crazy can people be?

Most people do not want to be killed. But your argument was about pain being the measure of morality.

Not the one and only measure. Come on, people. You guys think that everything can be declared either black or white, based upon some dogmatic foundation. Life is more complicated than that.

Also not many moralists who say anything consensual is OK were pleading for the state not to prosecute the killer and cannibal.

I do. And I do not speak for anyone else. What two (or more) adult people do with full consent is their own business.

 

[Spock]

Again, you deflect the question by insisting that it is never truly in one’s interest to act in a way that is harmful to others.

(Emphasis mine.) I never said “never”. All I said that generally it is not in one’s best interest to harm others. Let me emphasize: I do not see the world in black and white.

For example, suppose I find a wallet filled with money. What argument do you have that I should return the money instead of taking the cash and tossing the rest?

The direct version of the golden rule. And I would not say that you “should” return the money. You can return or keep it at your discretion. I would think of you highly if you returned it, but that is neither here nor there. My opinion does not matter. What you think about yourself is what matters.

We’re not addressing the severity of an action but its morality; you keep redefining the problem.

The two cannot be separated. The problem is more complicated than to reduce it to a few soundbites. (As a wise person once declared: "Wagner’s music is much better than it sounds. )

 

[Spock]

So the GR is a universal rule that only applies sometimes?

A good “guideline”. And guidelines are not rules.

In your scenario there is no crime. In mine there is.

I went back to check. You did not say why do you think it is a “crime” - unless you would contend that anything and everything against the written law is crime - which would be technically true. I am simply saying that if an act is either beneficial or neutral to others, it should not be regulated under the legal system.

I think America is a democracy. It is a representative democracy. I agree it was founded as a constitutional republic. But that is no longer the form of government.

The form of goverment has not changed. But it has been polluted - very seriously.

I do not vote because I do not approve of the system. I contend that anyone who votes is approving of the system. Of course that is another topic altogether.

So funny. I do vote every time, but I do a protest vote - I vote for the libertarians. I see it exactly opposite as you do: those who do not vote approve of the system (implicitly, of course).

But I do not think you can so easily dismiss my contention about the law and morality. Many people wanted, and voted for politicians who support, public health care. They did this because they claim we have a moral obligation to provide people with health care.

Well, I think they vote for it for several reasons. Many did for the reason you mentioned. Others did, because they think it would benefit them. You can always convince the people to feed from the public trough.

I would probably generally agree with you about how far the law should go.

Cool.

What is interesting is that early America, with its relative freedom, was very much a Christian nation.

Actually, no. You heard about the Treaty of Tripoli here… Especially Article 11: " As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;… ".

There were laws about sex, blue laws and so on but there were not the same restrictions on trade, association etc. It is under the liberal secularism that the number of laws have exploded to cover most areas of human activity (except for sex and abortion).

Of course, there were many laws based on Christian principles. But the goverment was always secular, openly so. Of course this is a different subject as well. Generally speaking some of the laws are based upon “moral” principles, most are not.

 

[Ender]

All I said that generally it is not in one’s best interest to harm others.

OK, that’s fine: so what is the argument that I shouldn’t harm another person if it is in my best interest to do so?

And I would not say that you “should” return the money. You can return or keep it at your discretion.

I would agree with this; I don’t think there is any argument beyond ones personal inclination by which to morally judge another person’s behavior. Morality is whatever we believe it to be.

Ender

 

[exnihilo]

I went back to check. You did not say why do you think it is a “crime” - unless you would contend that anything and everything against the written law is crime - which would be technically true. I am simply saying that if an act is either beneficial or neutral to others, it should not be regulated under the legal system.

My idea was that people would try to deprive others from using the parking spaces by conspiring to stay at a spot by having someone pay for them. I was drawing the distinction between someone coming along and seeing someone’s meter about to expire and, in good faith, helping them out versus people intentionally conspiring.

Actually, no. You heard about the Treaty of Tripoli here… Especially Article 11: " As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;… ".

Of course, there were many laws based on Christian principles. But the goverment was always secular, openly so. Of course this is a different subject as well. Generally speaking some of the laws are based upon “moral” principles, most are not.

Oh yes, I’ve heard of that. It is very popular. I do not think it is very meaningful or correct. Keep in mind I said America, meaning the nation and not the state, which would be the United States government. America was very much founded on Christian principles. Many of the states were very explicit in this. Many of the states had in their constitutions rule restricting government to those who believed in Christianity but not just that specifically Protestant Christianity. States like Massachusetts used public money to instruct people in the Gospel and included the clause with its purpose in their constitution. I believe all the states had state churches.

So in early America Christianity was tied to the state and the state to the church. There was no separation of church and state *except *at the federal level. It is a common error, made by most folks, to ignore the fact that the US is supposed to be a confederation and that the order was overturned by the War Between the States which determined that the federal government was a blood in, blood out gang.

In short the US states were anything but secular. They were not just Christian in principle but had state churches which means taxes were used to support the church and this after the founding of the US government.

 

[PRmerger]

At the risk of appearing shallow I express that I hope to never be in a situation in which I am tested in that way.

Nor I.

However, the “guidelines” you proferred do not permit acts of heroic virtue.

It is only through the Christian ethos that one would find merit in laying down one’s life for another, a perfect stranger, out of love.

 

[PRmerger]

It would be helping the one whose meter is about to expire. The reason? Friendship, for example. Or goodwill toward an unknown stranger.

Yep.

So here’s *another *universal moral norm: helping out a stranger is a good and virtuous act.

 

[PRmerger]

[You guys think that everything can be declared either black or white, based upon some dogmatic foundation. **Life is more complicated than that

.

Heh. A dogmatic proclamation if I ever heard one.

Why do you get to have dogmas but Believers can’t?

 

[Nooj]

There is nothing offensive in this type of guideline.

However, it doesn’t provide for the type of heroic virtue that only those who are Believers have, such as that of Maximilian Kolbe. St. Maximilian Kolbe offered his life for a complete stranger, in a Nazi concentration camp. A Jewish prisoner, a young husband and father, was being taken away to be tortured and killed, and Kolbe stepped up and offered his life for this young father.

This type of heroic virtue is not found in atheistic circles. Sadly.

How do you know? Have you looked?

 

[PRmerger]

A good “guideline”. And guidelines are not rules.

Well then, Spock, it seems as if we are merely disagreeing about semantics then.

You do have “guidelines”/principles/morals/rules that assist you in making decisions regarding good/evil.

That’s what Believers have also.

Our “guidelines” are simply informed by the Divine Law.

 

[PRmerger]

How do you know? Have you looked?

'kay. Fair enough.

Can you provide us an example of an atheist who, guided by his atheistic ethos, gave his life up for a complete stranger out of love?

 

[exnihilo]

There is nothing offensive in this type of guideline.

However, it doesn’t provide for the type of heroic virtue that only those who are Believers have, such as that of Maximilian Kolbe. St. Maximilian Kolbe offered his life for a complete stranger, in a Nazi concentration camp. A Jewish prisoner, a young husband and father, was being taken away to be tortured and killed, and Kolbe stepped up and offered his life for this young father.

This type of heroic virtue is not found in atheistic circles. Sadly.

Indeed a rule of merely not hurting others is nothing to brag about. Even the pagan Romans had the idea of virtue and honor. Not hurting other people would not speak to these ideas. It is possible for humanity to take a step backwards, and it has with moral theory. It is possible to lift man up or to lower him to the level of a brute.

For all the grief religion gets in my community the biggest and best hospital was started by Christians. There are two excellent, old universities both started by religious groups. This is true throughout Western Civilization. Prior to big government education and health care were all provided by religion. There has been no atheist movement before or since that was interested in helping educate or heal their fellow man. But then folks so inclined will have the audacity to claim religion hurts humanity. That is a severe blindness to facts.

 

[ILoveTheLordGod]

A human that’s nude would be ashamed of nudity, because of Adam and Eve.

Man knows what’s good and what’s bad because Adam and Eve took a bite from the Tree of Knowledge’s fruit.

So basically, if God didn’t exist, there would be no standards for being a good or a bad person.

 

[PRmerger]

For all the grief religion gets in my community the biggest and best hospital was started by Christians. There are two excellent, old universities both started by religious groups. This is true throughout Western Civilization. Prior to big government education and health care were all provided by religion. There has been no atheist movement before or since that was interested in helping educate or heal their fellow man. But then folks so inclined will have the audacity to claim religion hurts humanity. That is a severe blindness to facts.

'zactly!

If it weren’t for Christianity women would not be educated, orphans would not be cared for, the sick would die in the streets.

See this book for more details:

amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/0895260387

 

[PRmerger]

How do you know? Have you looked?

'kay. Fair enough.

Can you provide us an example of an atheist who, guided by his atheistic ethos, gave his life up for a complete stranger out of love?

I see you’re still online, Nooj, since posing your challenge.

Are you feverishly searching right now for “atheist” and “heroic virtue”?

I don’t think you’ll find anything, except for a soldier or two who’s given his life. And clearly soldiers, while heroic, are paid to give their life.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

However, the “guidelines” you proferred do not permit acts of heroic virtue.

I don’t understand how my general guidelines do not permit “heroic virtue.” Which part of them prohibit it?

 

[Nooj]

No actually, I’m doing my Greek homework. Homer is my homie.

And I’m not going to. I don’t know any atheists who sacrificed themselves for others, and certainly I don’t know of any atheists who became famous for said action. But why should I have to?

You said that:

This type of heroic virtue is not found in atheistic circles. Sadly.

This is different from saying ‘I personally have not found this type of heroic virtue in atheistic circles’. You said that this type of heroic virtue is not found. Yet you are not God. You don’t know what happens in the world. You have no way to prove or disprove your statement. You shouldn’t make statements that you can’t support. That is all I wanted to point out.