Increase of Atheists around the world, increase of crime any coincidence?

[VanitasVanitatum]

It’s a pointless exercise anyways.

 

[upant]

One more time I will ask: “WHAT” does “good” and “evil” mean? And you keep evading. Why?

I am not evading, in a purposeless universe created randomly by physical force, I don’t believe the concept of good and evil exist.

in the secular world, there are just choices and consequences.

why is this so hard to accept?

is abortion good, evil or just a choice?

 

[Barnesy]

Spaten:

One more time I will ask: “WHAT” does “good” and “evil” mean? And you keep evading. Why?

I am not evading, in a purposeless universe created randomly by physical force, I don’t believe the concept of good and evil exist.

in the secular world, there are just choices and consequences.

why is this so hard to accept?

is abortion good, evil or just a choice?

Nobody said what you just said that theres no purpose. Only the person you quoted and we dont care about him. So do you believe theres a purpose?? I guess you do because your a catholic. So what are the reasons you think for not killing a little girl? Theres no need to keep saying that theres no reason if there isnt a purpose because youve said that lots and lots of times and we all agree!!

 

[upant]

Theres no need to keep saying that theres no reason if there isnt a purpose because youve said that lots and lots of times and we all agree!!

Then we are done and can move on since we are in agreement. my point has been made.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

Theres no need to keep saying that theres no reason if there isnt a purpose because youve said that lots and lots of times and we all agree!!

Then we are done and can move on since we are in agreement. my point has been made.

But i asked a question and its polite to answer if you are asked. You still wont do that and i dont know why. I asked what the reasons were why you shouldnt kill a five year old girl and i gave you one reason muself but you still didnt answer. And youve been asked whatbthe difference is between good and evil. Cant you answer that either??

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

an atheist believes

But by definition this is false. An atheist simply denies the existence of any God(s). You are confusing Atheism with, perhaps, Utilitarianism or some other moral framework.

For an atheist, feelings and pleasure are the benchmarks for morality,

Again, you are equating Atheism with some unknown/unspecified moral framework. For all we know, an Atheist can subscribe entirely to the Christian worldview but still deny God’s existence. In fact, there are many people that follow Jesus’s teaching but deny he was God, or that there is a God at all.

A “good” person according to an atheist is one who seeks pleasure and avoids pain, not one who goes out of his way (i.e., self-sacrificing) to help others in need.

Again, misidentification. But even if you are referring to a Utilitarian, you are incorrect. Utilitarians seek to minimize suffering IN TOTAL. Self-sacrifice for the greater good is exactly the what a Utilitarian would do.

This kind of misses the point. Sure an atheist might take on a Christian moral framework, might not subscribe to utilitarianism, and might even consider self-sacrifice for the greater good.

The point being that an atheist could hold on to any moral perspective at all, but not justified by the fundamental tenets of atheism, which pretty much constrain the atheist to a materialistic world view that doesn’t ground any morality whatsoever.

Ergo, an atheist could be inconsistent and entirely capricious by taking to him/herself any moral view they want, but it wouldn’t be warranted rationally given the premises drawn from atheism.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

The point being that an atheist could hold on to any moral perspective at all, but not justified by the fundamental tenets of atheism

I think this sums up the great difficulty and frustration of this family of arguments/questions from some Christians. The “tenets of atheism” is not a thing for many.

It’d be saying that tenets of vegetarianism include care and concern for that plight of animals. But in reality it doesn’t as most I’ve meet simply don’t want to deal work eating meat and the perceived issues too their bodies.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The point being that an atheist could hold on to any moral perspective at all, but not justified by the fundamental tenets of atheism

I think this sums up the great difficulty and frustration of this family of arguments/questions from some Christians. The “tenets of atheism” is not a thing for many.

It’d be saying that tenets of vegetarianism include care and concern for that plight of animals. But in reality it doesn’t as most I’ve meet simply don’t want to deal work eating meat and the perceived issues too their bodies.

Actually, the two are not the same thing. There are a variety of reasons for being a vegetarian, so nothing follows from the position regarding metaphysics.

Unfortunately for atheists the same cannot be said. The denial of the existence of God – as in the intelligent Creator and sustainer of all that exists – has metaphysical fallout.

For one, the absence of God as the metaphysical ground of existence entails that existence (matter without purpose) has no moral foundation inbuilt into it. Ergo, an atheist must then provide rational grounds for morality – i.e., the reasons we ought to act morally from the nature of existence.

I haven’t seen anyone actually do that here. Perhaps you could try your hand?

If morality qua morality has any meaning it must be authoritative AND imperative, not merely indicative or pragmatic.

If being itself is fundamentally purposive and moral, then we have grounds for behaving as the fundamental nature of existence commands us to be.

If being is purely material with no purpose, no moral attribution and no inbuilt authority regarding moral behaviour, then there is no specification regarding what we must do, merely what we are moved to by pragmatism, survival or feeling. That isn’t sufficient for obligation.

A murderer is not acting contrary to any laws of nature if he acts to kill other human beings. Absent moral agency or moral status, a murderer is simply acting in a way consistent with material nature / survival of the fittest. There is no moral reason to do otherwise.

 

[Freddy]

A murderer is not acting contrary to any laws of nature if he acts to kill other human beings. Absent moral agency or moral status, a murderer is simply acting in a way consistent with material nature / survival of the fittest. There is no moral reason to do otherwise.

If you think that ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’ is a good maxim by which to live then one shouldn’t need a belief in a deity to follow it. Or need a fear of punishment to ensure that you hold to it. Let’s face it, there are lots of Christians who most definitely do not follow that teaching and no doubt a lot of non Christians who do.

And the survival of the fittest doesn’t mean what I think you think it means.

 

[HarryStotle]

If you think that ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’ is a good maxim by which to live then one shouldn’t need a belief in a deity to follow it. Or need a fear of punishment to ensure that you hold to it.

Something YOU have never explained: Why is ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’ a good maxim? What makes it good, in a fully explicated sense?

In fact, how do we know anything is GOOD, at all?

As to your “fear of punishment” straw man, you might want to inquire into how Catholicism determines good and evil and why fear of punishment is more a pragmatic or emotional motive than a truly moral one.

Catholic morality defines the nature of the good and the reasons for upholding the good, which has very little to do with fear of punishment, except for the morally intransigent who might not be motivated by any sense of the good, but only their own demise.

That isn’t a Catholic principle, more an atheistic trope that keeps being brought up by those anxious to show their lack of knowledge on the subject.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If you think that ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’ is a good maxim by which to live then one shouldn’t need a belief in a deity to follow it. Or need a fear of punishment to ensure that you hold to it.

Something YOU have never explained: Why is ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’ a good maxim?

I’ll give you my quick answer and then if you can give me yours please? It’s based on empathy and reciprocal altruism. Now yours if you could…

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Freddy:

If you think that ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’ is a good maxim by which to live then one shouldn’t need a belief in a deity to follow it. Or need a fear of punishment to ensure that you hold to it.

Something YOU have never explained: Why is ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’ a good maxim?

I’ll give you my quick answer and then if you can give me yours please? It’s based on empathy and reciprocal altruism. Now yours if you could…

How does empathy alone determine what is good for the person/creature you are being empathetic to?

Basing what is the actual good for, say a kitten or puppy, on mere empathy is empty and hollow. What is required is actual knowledge of the kind of being a kitten or puppy is and what it requires to sustain its life. Merely feeling empathy doesn’t provide any of that.

Reciprocal altruism is begging the question. In order to know what is good for another, you first have to know what is truly good for yourself. Again, merely feeling empathy gets you nowhere.

What is required is a full-bodied understanding of what kind of being you are dealing with and what actions on your part would promote the good of that being. In other words, a full teleology of being.

What are the end goods to work towards for each kind of being, and how would we recognize those to begin with. Mere empathy gets you nowhere.

You might want to refer to Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics or Aquinas on Human Acts.

You won’t go near those, though, largely because you have a simplistic and fundamentalist view of ethics, as if your mere intuition (how you currently feel) is sufficient to guide you. The problem is that very few people in the world likely share exactly your same feelings regarding any situation and you have no way to rationally make a case for why they ought to feel as you do instead of some other way.

Your resort to platitudes sounds convincing, until we start beating through the weeds to germane issues such as abortion, for example. You claim that having “no empathy” for the developing human being justifies killing it. Many others find that reprehensible. If “feelings” are all we have the issue is insoluble.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Ergo, an atheist must then provide rational grounds for morality – i.e., the reasons we ought to act morally from the nature of existence.

I haven’t seen anyone actually do that here. Perhaps you could try your hand?

This feels like a trap. This implies a framework and requirements that I’m not sure applies. I do not have a reason for an “ought” in the context you are asking nor do I feel I need one to function in life. At some point the philosophical becomes so abstract that it loses practically.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Ergo, an atheist must then provide rational grounds for morality – i.e., the reasons we ought to act morally from the nature of existence.

I haven’t seen anyone actually do that here. Perhaps you could try your hand?

This feels like a trap. This implies a framework and requirements that I’m not sure applies. I do not have a reason for an “ought” in the context you are asking nor do I feel I need one to function in life. At some point the philosophical becomes so abstract that it loses practically.

Except that the problem is we are rapidly devolving morally into killing the unborn, terminating the lives of the elderly, abandoning family life, delegitimizing gender identity, wrecking all controls on sexual behaviour, disqualifying all stringent moral expectations and losing any moral compass that might still be available.

The trap has already been sprung and our moral appendages are shredded and bleeding profusely. Only an anesthetized moral sensibility would be numb to the current situation.

Seems to me that “practicality” is all but lost, abstract or not.

The incapacity to discuss morality at all, doesn’t improve morality it undermines it completely.

 

[Freddy]

What is required is a full-bodied understanding of what kind of being you are dealing with and what actions on your part would promote the good of that being.

I hope that’s not your idea of a short answer…And I’m confused in that you deny my argument and the proffer one yourself that is exactly the same.

And I am fully aware of what Aristotle wrote about ethics. His views on natural virtues (about which he said all reasonable men should be able to agree) such as honour, courage and friendship match mine. We all feel we know what these terms mean. Likewise the negative aspects of human nature such as shame, cowardice and hate. And that we can empathise with others and appreciate that they feel the same about these terms allows us to agree on their meaning.

He also believed that the highest aim for anyone was happiness - meaning virtous in this sense . Something akin to that which Mills suggested when he referred to it being better to be a man dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. Ol’ Aristotle was something of a utilitarian, eh?

So if all reasonable men believe that it is better to be brave than a coward or honourable rather than shameful and we can empathise with others to understand that they feel the same as well then we can agree that these are aspects of our lives we should try to attain.

And reciprocal altruism is what Jesus tells us we should do. Treat others as we would wish to be treated. So if we wish to be treated honourably, because we all agree that it is a virtue, then we should treat others honourably. In fact, this could really be summed up thus: ‘What is required is a full-bodied understanding of what kind of being you are dealing with and what actions on your part would promote the good of that being.’

Aristotle, that utilitarian par excellence, could only agree.

 

[HarryStotle]

Aristotle, that utilitarian par excellence, could only agree.

Uh huh.

Which is why in its discussion of utilitarianism The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy doesn’t mention Aristotle at all.

Clearly your training in philosophy is very limited given that you think the mere mention of happiness by Aristotle means he must be a utilitarian.

Apparently you have been taken in by the translation of the Greek eudaemonia as “happiness” in English. For Aristotle, human virtue is the end. That is, the function a human being is to “exercise his vital faculties in accordance with reason." People are good if they live virtuous lives by habitually exercising their faculties with excellence and virtue, as determined by the faculty of reason.

The end of a moral life, for Aristotle, isn’t happiness in the utilitarian sense, but in the virtuous exercise of human faculties, whether or not happiness comes about.

Aristotle did assume happiness would generally result, but in the sense that a content or satisfying life would generally come about because the moral person has lived a fulfilled life, even if they turned out to be miserable by accidental circumstances.

The end isn’t to avoid misery or seek happiness, the end is living a virtuous life.

 

[HarryStotle]

And reciprocal altruism is what Jesus tells us we should do. Treat others as we would wish to be treated.

Actually, this is incorrect as a foundational moral principle. As a rule of thumb given his audience it works.

He was speaking to his disciples who presumably understood what their own good human behaviour
would be like. To be more specific he said, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:34-5) His ethical behaviour was the model and template for theirs. Given that they knew to their bones how to treat others because they knew how they themselves should be treated.

That is far from “Treat others as we would wish to be treated.” Your rendition of the principle could mean anything from sadomasochism to gladiatorial death duels.

What does “wish” mean, exactly? In what state of mind is that wishing to occur? Psychotic? Sociopathic? Psychopathic? All moral as long as they wish on others what they wish for themselves?

Uh huh.

Corrupt moral beings would presumably not be in the condition to will anything but corruption on others. They would wish to others the same corruption they themselves have reaped.

 

[HarryStotle]

I hope that’s not your idea of a short answer…And I’m confused in that you deny my argument and the proffer one yourself that is exactly the same.

What you might have in mind is not exactly what you put on paper. Possibly the problem for you.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Aristotle, that utilitarian par excellence, could only agree.

Uh huh.

Which is why in its discussion of utilitarianism The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy doesn’t mention Aristotle at all.

Clearly your training in philosophy is very limited given that you think the mere mention of happiness by Aristotle means he must be a utilitarian.

Apparently you have been taken in by the translation of the Greek eudaemonia as “happiness” in English. For Aristotle, human virtue is the end. That is, the function a human being is to “exercise his vital faculties in accordance with reason." People are good if they live virtuous lives by habitually exercising their faculties with excellence and virtue, as determined by the faculty of reason.

The end of a moral life, for Aristotle, isn’t happiness in the utilitarian sense, but in the virtuous exercise of human faculties, whether or not happiness comes about.

Aristotle did assume happiness would generally result, but in the sense that a content or satisfying life because the moral person has lived a fulfilled life, even if they turned out miserable by accidental circumstances.

I guess you missed the part where I said ‘happiness - meaning virtuous in this sense’. Likewise me quoting Mills, the quote which I’m sure you’d be aware was saying exactly the same thing. Or maybe not as you said that happiness is not happiness in the utilitarian sense. Happiness in the utiliarian sense is exactly how Mills described it. Not simply a life full of cold beer and watching football. Anyone who thinks it’s a matter of personal enjoyment hasn’t studied it.

So…now we have that out of the way and we both agree what Aristotle was on about, it seems we were on that very same page to begin with. That ‘understanding of what kind of being you are dealing with and what actions on your part would promote the good of that being’ is what counts.

We know what kind of being we are dealing with - people like ourselves. And we know they understand virtues as we do because we can discuss these things as reasonable men and women. And because we can empathise with them we understand what it is that they would feel being denied these virtues. And as per the teachings of Jesus (not the first to propose reciprocal altruism as a means to a moral life but the most well known) we are better served by treating them well. So we can all ‘live virtuous lives by habitually exercising their faculties with excellence and virtue, as determined by the faculty of reason.’

Couldn’t have put it better myself.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And reciprocal altruism is what Jesus tells us we should do. Treat others as we would wish to be treated.

Actually, this is incorrect as a foundational moral principle.

It is? I can’t believe that you deny that the most important teaching that the Son of God ever said cannot be described as a foundational moral principle.

And there’s me and Jesus both thinking that there is no greater commandment. If He said nothing else it would have been more than enough.