Is "Common Sense" a Valid Source for Atheist Moral Norms?

[EnosJadon]

Murder is an absolute crime at law in that there is no defense to murder. If a defense exists the charge is dropped to manslaughter.

Therein lies the problem, that there must be qualifiers by which to differentiate a morally justifiable killing from a morally unjustifiable one. Something can hardly be said to be an absolute if the means by which one defines it aren’t also absolutes. But how does a theist determine the qualifiers for justifiable murder any less subjectively than an atheist does?

Even rape needs to be qualified. Most societies recognize that even in the presence of consent there are circumstances in which the act is still immoral. But how does one determine those qualifiers?

They don’t appear to be codified anywhere, so where do they come from?

 

[inocente]

But as regards absolutes, I don’t agree that rape (or murder) is an absolute. As I said earlier, for an act to be immoral there must be harm. And rape is harming in a particular way. Harming a person is wrong IF that entails sex against her will or IF she is not in a position to be able to refuse or IF she is below the age of consent etc.

What you have cited is pretty much the legal definition of rape.

They don’t appear to be codified anywhere, so where do they come from?

Agreed from a moral angle each case must be judged separately, but it’s not like legal small print. When someone technically commits rape then it’s not OK if a clever lawyer finds a get-out clause. Morality isn’t legality. Acts are good or bad whatever they are called in rule-books. Violating another person’s dignity is bad because it devalues and/or dehumanizes them. Period. We can arrive at that conclusion by means of secular inalienable rights or because we’re all children of God, or just by common sense, but surely that conclusion stands.

 

[inocente]

We cannot passionately believe in anything unless we think we are right, but where we try to persuade another we are right we should do so for a legitimate reason and not simply for the sake of being right.

The big issue for Ireland North and South as a result of Brexit is the open border. No one in Ireland North or South wants to see the closed border of the past re-established. The current UK government have promised this will not be the case, but I really don’t know how they are going to deal with this major issue. One thing I think can be said for certain is we will be plunged into further economic recession as a result of Brexit. Things are bad as they are, they are going to get worse, Northern Ireland will be worst hit.

When nations experience years of conflict they become ‘war weary.’ This was essentially the catalyst for the Good Friday Agreement. There were major issues with the Good Friday Agreement and there still are, but everyone just wanted an end to conflict and would pretty much have agreed to anything to achieve that objective. No one wants to a return to violence, we’ve come too far to back to those days but further economic recession that is now inevitable may potentially open old wounds. I strongly hope it doesn’t and I am not alone in that, but hope is not sufficient. Our will must prevent it.

If there is a return to the violence of the past, I’m getting out of here. I’m not going to live like that again and I’m not raising my children in the same climate I grew up in.

I think you’re right, if the violence returns then it will stay for generations to come. In a largely Christian population.

While the largely Christian population in America build a wall to keep out the largely Christian population of Mexico.

Imho we Christians should maybe think twice about preaching that we have the moral high ground when we can’t even get on with each other.

 

[minkymurph]

Therein lies the problem, that there must be qualifiers by which to differentiate a morally justifiable killing from a morally unjustifiable one. Something can hardly be said to be an absolute if the means by which one defines it aren’t also absolutes. But how does a theist determine the qualifiers for justifiable murder any less subjectively than an atheist does?

I would say they don’t.

Even rape needs to be qualified. Most societies recognize that even in the presence of consent there are circumstances in which the act is still immoral. But how does one determine those qualifiers?

They don’t appear to be codified anywhere, so where do they come from?

Rape is qualified and codified by law. Crimes are commonly qualified and codified largely on the harm principle, though it is recognized the harm principle has it’s limitations. An example is ‘Hate speech’ were freedom of speech is restricted on the ground it curtails the talents and abilities of certain sectors of the community.

An atheist would not accept ‘God says it’s wrong’ as a qualifier. A theist would, but theist’s do not always agree as what ‘God says.’ Bradski and I were discussing consequentialism as a means of determining qualifiers.

 

[minkymurph]

I think you’re right, if the violence returns then it will stay for generations to come. In a largely Christian population.

While the largely Christian population in America build a wall to keep out the largely Christian population of Mexico.

Imho we Christians should maybe think twice about preaching that we have the moral high ground when we can’t even get on with each other.

Where we can’t get on with each other we legitimize criticisms proposed by atheists. If we wish to demonstrate to atheists belief in God is the ‘better way’ persuasively we should put our own house in order first.

 

[EnosJadon]

EnosJadon:

But how does a theist determine the qualifiers for justifiable murder any less subjectively than an atheist does?

I would say they don’t.

So the qualifiers that a theist uses are just as subjective as those that an atheist uses?

In what sense then could one argue that the theistic method is superior?

Rape is qualified and codified by law. Crimes are commonly qualified and codified largely on the harm principle, though it is recognized the harm principle has it’s limitations.

So this codified law would be the result of what exactly…experience…common sense…consequentialism…Divine revelation…all of the above…?

How does the theist achieve this codification differently than the atheist does?

 

[o_mlly]

…

But as regards absolutes, I don’t agree that rape … is an absolute. As I said earlier, for an act to be immoral there must be harm. And rape is harming in a particular way. Harming a person is wrong IF that entails sex against her will or IF she is not in a position to be able to refuse or IF she is below the age of consent etc.

Now that might seem like splitting hairs to you, …

The “hairs” split above are merely those conditions which render an act of sexual intercourse to be non-rape.

“Common sense” suggests that to prove your point that rape is not an absolute evil you would have to define a morally good or neutral rape. Can you describe any set of conditions in which a rape may be deemed a morally good or neutral act? If not, then rape is absolutely evil.

 

[o_mlly]

If by the term “common sense” you mean that integrating sense one uses to give meaning to the evidence of one’s own five senses, then no. Genghis Kahn and I would have quite different “common senses.”

If you mean by “common sense” those ideas to which all agree then, yes.

 

[minkymurph]

So the qualifiers that a theist uses are just as subjective as those that an atheist uses?

In terms of assessing justification of murder - yes.

In what sense then could one argue that the theistic method is superior?

In terms justifying murder I don’t think it can be argued it is.
EnosJadon;14516107:

So this codified law would be the result of what exactly…experience…common sense…consequentialism…Divine revelation…all of the above…?

What codified law?

How does the theist achieve this codification differently than the atheist does?

Codification of what?

 

[EnosJadon]

If by the term “common sense” you mean that integrating sense one uses to give meaning to the evidence of one’s own five senses, then no. Genghis Kahn and I would have quite different “common senses.”

If you mean by “common sense” those ideas to which all agree then, yes.

You’re absolutely right, common sense isn’t universal, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t use it when defining what does and doesn’t constitute murder. We all have to differentiate a justifiable killing from an unjustifiable one, and one of the tools that we use to do that, is common sense.

Genghis Khan used his, you use yours, and I use mine, perhaps not as well as I would like, but I try. The point is that it’s one of the tools that we use to differentiate right from wrong. We may have others. In which case we subjectively choose how to apply them.

You may have one that says “Thou shalt not kill” but you still have to use some measure of common sense when applying it.

 

[EnosJadon]

EnosJadon:

So this codified law would be the result of what exactly…experience…common sense…consequentialism…Divine revelation…all of the above…?

What codified law?

Now that’s actually a reasonable question. Are we talking about a civil code, a moral code, a personal code, a religious code, or something else?

We’re talking about the moral code by which a theist differentiates a justifiable killing from an unjustifiable one, among other things. Which of the aforementioned means does the theist use, seeing as how some sources such as Divine revelation may at times be lacking in specifics?

How does a theist codify what is and isn’t morally justified? And is it ultimately the same means by which an atheist codifies things. Regardless of whether or not the atheist specifically refers to them as morality.

 

[Vonsalza]

Now that’s actually a reasonable question. Are we talking about a civil code, a moral code, a personal code, a religious code, or something else?

“Societal rules considered non-arbitrary” might be a good conceptualization.

How does a theist codify what is and isn’t morally justified? And is it ultimately the same means by which an atheist codifies things. Regardless of whether or not the atheist specifically refers to them as morality.

A theist comes to their moral view because its is taught as a tenet of their religion, which is part of their culture, which serves the ultimate function of binding multiple people together under similar behavior rules - a la “morals”. When law-breakers successfully evade temporal law enforcement, the theistic society can console themselves with “God’ll eventually get 'em!”.

An atheist methodologically forms those rules on an individual basis and then really hopes that other atheists draw the same conclusions. When other atheists don’t, the only functional solution beyond shaking their fists in relativist anger is the dramatic empowerment of state law enforcement to carry out the codified secular “common good” with a very large degree of precision, as they lack a “divine cop”. This must be done or the prime function of the state will be undermined.
hears “Slav’sya, Otechestvo Nashe Svobodnoye!” playing over the state-speaker system

So no, the codification of rules and their enforcement are not identically practiced between theistic and atheistic societies. Lack of conformity and a “divine cop” forces an atheistic world to execute their norms in a far more authoritarian way.

To Minky: I agree that Christendom on the whole needs to do a better job of “getting its house in order”.

However, that should never be a precluding requisite to debate as there will always be a disparity between “the man” and “the idea”, a la Aristotle. Christ is the only exception in western society, and he had the benefit of also being God.

 

[minkymurph]

Now that’s actually a reasonable question. Are we talking about a civil code, a moral code, a personal code, a religious code, or something else?

I have absolutely no idea.

The reason I have no idea is I personally was not talking about a moral code at all of any kind. The statement I made you responded to at #221 was one line in my post at #220. This post was one of a series in an exchange of views between Bradski and I. We were exchanging views on the existence of moral absolute in terms of if any moral could be categorized as a moral absolute? I proposed rape is moral absolute on the ground I personally could not think of any circumstance in which rape could be justified or excused. By contrast I proposed murdering Hitler could be justified an murder is an an absolute crime. I cannot for the life of me make any connection whatsoever between what I wrote and the questions you’re are asking as my statements were not made with a ‘moral code’ of any shape, form or description in mind. From my perspective we hadn’t even touched on a ‘moral code’ of any shape form or description in the exchange of views.

We’re talking about the moral code by which a theist differentiates a justifiable killing from an unjustifiable one, among other things. Which of the aforementioned means does the theist use, seeing as how some sources such as Divine revelation may at times be lacking in specifics?

I personally was not talking about a moral code by which a theist differentiates a justifiable killing from an unjustifiable one. Now you’ve asked the question the only ‘code’ I know of by a theist would differentiate between a justifiable killing and an unjustifiable one is Just War theory, though as indicated by the phrase itself it is a theory not a ‘code’ and not designed to qualify the circumstances in which a theist could consider murder justified.

How does a theist codify what is and isn’t morally justified?

I couldn’t answer that in the absence of specifics. It would depend on the theist and what specifically the ‘what’ is.

And is it ultimately the same means by which an atheist codifies things. Regardless of whether or not the atheist specifically refers to them as morality.

You would have to ask an atheist how they codify ‘things,’ but my post at #206 sheds some light on how I would ‘codify things’ if I were an atheist.

 

[EnosJadon]

The reason I have no idea is I personally was not talking about a moral code at all of any kind…From my perspective we hadn’t even touched on a ‘moral code’ of any shape form or description in the exchange of views.

Well then I shall leave you two to continue as you were. Just consider this a misguided interjection, and I’ll grab myself a bag of popcorn and return to my seat.

 

[Bradski]

Well, you qualified the kind of harm that made rape wrong: “Harming a person is wrong IF…”

Wouldn’t harming a person always be wrong?

Not necessarily. You may have to amputate a limb to save a life for example.

 

[minkymurph]

Well then I shall leave you two to continue as you were. Just consider this a misguided interjection, and I’ll grab myself a bag of popcorn and return to my seat.

Are you going to share it or do you consider it perfectly moral to eat it all yourself.

 

[minkymurph]

To Minky: I agree that Christendom on the whole needs to do a better job of “getting its house in order”.

However, that should never be a precluding requisite to debate as there will always be a disparity between “the man” and “the idea”, a la Aristotle. Christ is the only exception in western society, and he had the benefit of also being God.

No it should not be a precluding requisite to debate. Productive debate that has an objective is healthy, and even where consensus cannot be reached we gain insight.

Having said that futile debates can be fun - for those who simply like debating and the debate can progress in the absence of animosity. I can recall having an intense debate one Christmas on the topic, ‘Rudolf was a woman.’ It had a lot to do with antlers.

I have also had several debates with a Protestant friend who is also my business partner on the apocrypha. We know we will never agree but truth be told sometimes just like airing our own opinions because we both like debating. Unfortunately, he’s hard to get the better of as he is autistic and thus holds a mine of information in his head he can churn out at the drop of a hat and outstrips me in intelligence. He’s a great business partner. No people skills but that’s my department.

 

[Bradski]

No it should not be a precluding requisite to debate. Productive debate that has an objective is healthy, and even where consensus cannot be reached we gain insight.

Having said that futile debates can be fun - for those who simply like debating and the debate can progress in the absence of animosity. I can recall having an intense debate one Christmas on the topic, ‘Rudolf was a woman.’ It had a lot to do with antlers.

That’s funny…I heard the same thing recently. Spolier Alert: it seems that female reindeers shed their antlers in the winter.

And to get back on topic, I need to clarify something.

When I said previously that rape could not be described as absolutely wrong, I am not saying that it could be considered right in some bizarre scenario. I am saying that the term ‘rape’ is not an absolute term in itself. It is a way of describing a situation where harm is being committed in a specific way. Just as ‘murder’ is not an absolute term but a way of describing a situation where harm is being committed in a specific way.

If you need to describe how and why and under what circumstances harm is being committed, then you are saying it is wrong IF it is done in this manner and IF it is done under these circumstances. Which then, by definition, makes the act relative to those circumstances.

And as all harm needs to be qualified in some way in order for us to make a decision on the morality of the act, all moral statements are relative.

 

[fhansen]

Not necessarily. You may have to amputate a limb to save a life for example.

So there may be a case where rape provides some beneficial harm, or where the good outweighs the harm?

 

[minkymurph]

That’s funny…I heard the same thing recently. Spolier Alert: it seems that female reindeers shed their antlers in the winter.

Yeah - that was the course of the debate.

And to get back on topic, I need to clarify something.

Yes - back to reality.

When I said previously that rape could not be described as absolutely wrong, I am not saying that it could be considered right in some bizarre scenario. I am saying that the term ‘rape’ is not an absolute term in itself. It is a way of describing a situation where harm is being committed in a specific way. Just as ‘murder’ is not an absolute term but a way of describing a situation where harm is being committed in a specific way.

If you need to describe how and why and under what circumstances harm is being committed, then you are saying it is wrong IF it is done in this manner and IF it is done under these circumstances. Which then, by definition, makes the act relative to those circumstances.

And as all harm needs to be qualified in some way in order for us to make a decision on the morality of the act, all moral statements are relative.

I thought you had a dislike of moral relativism?

If you need to describe how and why and under what circumstances harm is being committed, we need terms that describe the harmful act. I would say the terms rape and murder are understood in an absolute sense in that they are terms that are not open to interpretation nor ambiguous and no one has any doubt as to what the term means.

It’s certainly difficult to establish a moral absolute in terms of; 'This act is absolutely wrong in all circumstances irrespective of what they are, and anyone who commits this act should never under any circumstances be excused, but I think we do need objective benchmarks. Where we seek to qualify anything we need a starting point. That said, I suppose you could work from, ‘nothing is wrong’ or ‘everything is wrong’ as a hypothetical benchmark. I say hypothetical as there are few who genuinely believe ‘nothing is wrong’ or ‘everything is wrong.’