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

[Bradski]

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

I can’t think of one. Although someone earlier suggested that it may result in a line of descent which results in, for example, you being here. Which actually may well be the case for a lot of us.

The argument was that God permits some things to happen that we consider to be wrong and we cannot hold God accountable because we don’t know what the final outcome might be.

It’s not an argument that I find to be reasonable in any way.

 

[fhansen]

I can’t think of one. Although someone earlier suggested that it may result in a line of descent which results in, for example, you being here. Which actually may well be the case for a lot of us.

The argument was that God permits some things to happen that we consider to be wrong and we cannot hold God accountable because we don’t know what the final outcome might be.

It’s not an argument that I find to be reasonable in any way.

Ok, my mistake then-I thought your former post was arguing that rape can be justifiable in certain cases IF…

 

[Bradski]

Ok, my mistake then-I thought your former post was arguing that rape can be justifiable in certain cases IF…

No, it’s simply the process we must go through to determine if something is wrong. It may actually justify any given act, but we need to define the action first: ‘Is this harm morally acceptable IF it is done for this reason and IF it is done in this way and IF it results in a particular outcome’.

Which all sounds quite straightforward until someone comes up with a variation of the trolley problem and then trying to get a consensus is like herding cats.

 

[Vonsalza]

The argument was that God permits some things to happen that we consider to be wrong and we cannot hold God accountable because we don’t know what the final outcome might be.

It’s not an argument that I find to be reasonable in any way.

I don’t think its an argument any intelligent Christian would find reasonable. If God should be held accountable because he “permits” something, then it is implied that God should routinely violate our will to prevent said bad from happening.

I’m sure most Christians would find that implication absurd. To me, the argument smells a bit like straw.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t think its an argument any intelligent Christian would find reasonable. If God should be held accountable because he “permits” something, then it is implied that God should routinely violate our will to prevent said bad from happening.

I’m sure most Christians would find that implication absurd. To me, the argument smells a bit like straw.

Yet this is you yesterday attempting to support the argument:

You 100% sure about that?

Genesis 50:20 You thought evil against me: but God turned it into good, that he might exalt me, as at present you see, and might save many people.

 

[o_mlly]

… By contrast I proposed murdering Hitler could be justified …

Murder, like rape (the “Bradski Exception” yet to be disclosed withstanding), is never justified. Tyrannicide is not murder.

 

[minkymurph]

Murder, like rape (the “Bradski Exception” yet to be disclosed withstanding), is never justified. Tyrannicide is not murder.

Tyrannicide is not murder? I like that argument. Can you expand?

 

[o_mlly]

Tyrannicide is not murder? I like that argument. Can you expand?

newadvent.org/cathen/15108a.htm

Four conditions necessary to justify an act of tyrannicide:

1. 
   *]that the killing be necessary to end the usurpation and restore legitimate authority
   *] that there is no higher authority available that is able and willing to depose the usurper
   *] there is no probability that the tyrannicide will result in even greater evil than allowing the usurper to remain in power
   *] that such an act not be upon the initiative of an individual or even a small group, but of the community
   
   As to whether Hitler was an oppressor or a usurper “many modern political philosophers would posit that a leader who abuses power and has become tyrannical ipso facto loses legitimacy and becomes an usurper.” catholicstraightanswers.com/what-is-the-churchs-teaching-on-tyrannicide/.

 

[minkymurph]

newadvent.org/cathen/15108a.htm

Four conditions necessary to justify an act of tyrannicide:

1. 
   *]that the killing be necessary to end the usurpation and restore legitimate authority
   *] that there is no higher authority available that is able and willing to depose the usurper
   *] there is no probability that the tyrannicide will result in even greater evil than allowing the usurper to remain in power
   *] that such an act not be upon the initiative of an individual or even a small group, but of the community
   
   As to whether Hitler was an oppressor or a usurper “many modern political philosophers would posit that a leader who abuses power and has become tyrannical ipso facto loses legitimacy and becomes an usurper.” catholicstraightanswers.com/what-is-the-churchs-teaching-on-tyrannicide/.

1. 
   I like this - thx

 

[minkymurph]

I have concluded there is something to be said for atheism.

I have two teenage sons and have just walked into their respective bedrooms.

:bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes:

I said to myself - and I listened -

is this an objective mess or a subjective one?

It is an absolute mess or merely a perceived one?

Is a mess simply because I think so, and as my sons have no issue with what I perceive as a mess should I let them make up their own minds or assume the role of dictator and tell them if I say it’s a mess - it’s a mess and I don’t have to explain myself?

Guess what conclusion I arrived at?

 

[Vonsalza]

Yet this is you yesterday attempting to support the argument:

I presume them, you fail to see the difference between “committing” acts and “permitting” acts?

Please let me illuminate your darkness: oxforddictionaries.com/

I’m not a bit surprised though. False equivalency and straw-men are the bread and butter of most atheists in their fumblings against those that disagree with them. It’s quite observable.

 

[EnosJadon]

Murder, like rape (the “Bradski Exception” yet to be disclosed withstanding), is never justified.

You may be missing the bigger point.

WHY is murder immoral? WHY is rape immoral? If you’re trying to identify moral absolutes then simply designating some acts as immoral doesn’t get to the underlying principle of why they’re immoral. It’s like saying that some things are pretty. But what’s your standard for pretty? Simply saying that some things are immoral doesn’t address the question of why they’re immoral.

And it’s only when you have an underlying principle for what makes things immoral that you can objectively measure which things are moral and which things aren’t.

So you can believe that murder is immoral, but why? You can believe that rape is immoral, but why? Some people aren’t satisfied with simply being told what’s true, they’re insatiably driven to understand why it’s true.

It’s in that quest that theism and atheism may be destined to end up in the same place.

 

[o_mlly]

…
So you can believe that murder is immoral, but why?

Common sense. The definition of murder is the intentional taking of innocent life.

If humans have a right to life then others are obligated to respect that right.

Don’t overthink the obvious.

 

[minkymurph]

Common sense. The definition of murder is the intentional taking of innocent life.

If humans have a right to life then others are obligated to respect that right.

Don’t overthink the obvious.

I would have to agree that if we have to ask why murder and rape are immoral we are overthinking the obvious.

Part of me thinks it defies belief we are even discussing this, but that said, there are people who just question everything - even what they agree and it’s not altogether a bad thing.

Any number of legitimate reasons could be presented as to why murder and rape are immoral.

The ‘harm principle’ is one reason and on the basis of the this principle they are categorized as crimes, though it does have it’s limitations.

Breakdown of society - societies have moral principles to prevent breakdown of society. To prevent breakdown of society moral principles serve to regulate relationships between citizens on a personal level, in the wider community, in business dealings so on and so forth.

 

[EnosJadon]

Common sense. The definition of murder is the intentional taking of innocent life.

If humans have a right to life then others are obligated to respect that right.

Don’t overthink the obvious.

So you seem to agree that there’s an explanation for why murder and rape are immoral, you just don’t want to spell out what that explanation is. I can understand why a theist would be reticent to do so, because it’s possible to explain the human concept of immorality without appealing to a deity.

So I ask again, why are murder and rape immoral?

If it’s so obvious, then don’t evade the question, answer it.

 

[EnosJadon]

I would have to agree that if we have to ask why murder and rape are immoral we are overthinking the obvious.

Part of me thinks it defies belief we are even discussing this, but that said, there are people who just question everything - even what they agree and it’s not altogether a bad thing

A great many things have been justified with the explanation that it’s obvious.

I can appreciate that you recognize that there are legitimate explanations for the existence of morality beyond mere appeals to the divine. But what I’m getting at is that morality isn’t dependent upon the existence of said divinity for its validity. Morality can stand or fall purely on its humanistic merits.

 

[minkymurph]

A great many things have been justified with the explanation that it’s obvious.

I can appreciate that you recognize that there are legitimate explanations for the existence of morality beyond mere appeals to the divine. But what I’m getting at is that morality isn’t dependent upon the existence of said divinity for its validity. Morality can stand or fall purely on its humanistic merits.

Thank you for clarifying your position. It was incredibly difficult to engage in dialogue with you before as I did not know what your position was. Now you’ve clarified your position it makes it much easier for me to respond.

I can’t say I disagree with your position. I could go into the theological argument that the reason is the case is morality was incorporated into our very nature by the Divine, but I am guessing you would reject that. What you may agree with is theists and atheist can formulate moral principles and societal codes they both can sign up to without the necessity of either having to change their position on the existence of God. The main area contention between theists and atheists is sexual morality. Outside of that there’s is not a lot of disagreement in my view.

If the objective is we don’t want people in our society to murder and rape, why they would agree not to murder and rape makes no difference to the objective - the objective is achieved. There are atheists and theists alike for whom that is insufficient - it must be agreed because there is no God/is a God and nothing less will do. I personally do not fall into this category as I am not one for flogging dead horses. You can’t tell someone to believe in God and you cannot tell them not to. Concerning religion, if anyone wants to know anything about God and religion there is any amount of information readily available today, there are Church’s everywhere, religion is taught in schools. That is not to say I would not engage in dialogue on the topic, but at the end of the day people have to work out for themselves were they stand on God and religion.

Forgive me for pre-empting what may potentially be the next question. Why believe in God at all? My response would be a relationship with God and living your faith involves a lot more than simply obeying rules and ‘being good.’

 

[Bradski]

I presume them, you fail to see the difference between “committing” acts and “permitting” acts?.

The argument was about permitting acts.

The argument was that God permits some things to happen that we consider to be wrong and we cannot hold God accountable because we don’t know what the final outcome might be.

And:

Your whole argument is that God may permit evil because good may come of it. That is against Catholic teaching.

Which you attempted to back up:

You 100% sure about that?

And which you acknowledged in your post:

I don’t think its an argument any intelligent Christian would find reasonable. If God should be held accountable because he “permits” something…

Again, the argument is not mine in the first place and no-one has mentioned committing acts. Just permitting. And as you seem to have checked the actual meaning of the word it would seem that you understand the argument.

I’m not sure if you support it or not. It depends which of your posts you read.

 

[Bradski]

Common sense. The definition of murder is the intentional taking of innocent life.

If humans have a right to life then others are obligated to respect that right.

Don’t overthink the obvious.

There may be some in this thread who would reject your claim that common sense couod be used.

But you have actually now given a reason why younthink murder is morally wrong. Because it is taking an innocent life (someone dies who doesn’r deserve it - we can discuss the meaning of justice here) and humans have a right to life. Which ties in with how I described harm (was it this thread?) as removing someone’s freedom. In this case, the freedom to live.

You also touch on the fact that others are obliged to respect an individuals rights (or freedoms) which brings in the golden rule (aka altruism) and empathy.

So there are quite a few reasons why it is wrong to murder someone. All valid. All with which we agree, whether we are Muslim, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, Jainist, Hindu etc.

 

[Bradski]

Thank you for clarifying your position. It was incredibly difficult to engage in dialogue with you before as I did not know what your position was. Now you’ve clarified your position it makes it much easier for me to respond.

I can’t say I disagree with your position. I could go into the theological argument that the reason is the case is morality was incorporated into our very nature by the Divine, but I am guessing you would reject that. What you may agree with is theists and atheist can formulate moral principles and societal codes they both can sign up to without the necessity of either having to change their position on the existence of God. The main area contention between theists and atheists is sexual morality. Outside of that there’s is not a lot of disagreement in my view.

If the objective is we don’t want people in our society to murder and rape, why they would agree not to murder and rape makes no difference to the objective - the objective is achieved. There are atheists and theists alike for whom that is insufficient - it must be agreed because there is no God/is a God and nothing less will do. I personally do not fall into this category as I am not one for flogging dead horses. You can’t tell someone to believe in God and you cannot tell them not to. Concerning religion, if anyone wants to know anything about God and religion there is any amount of information readily available today, there are Church’s everywhere, religion is taught in schools. That is not to say I would not engage in dialogue on the topic, but at the end of the day people have to work out for themselves were they stand on God and religion.

Forgive me for pre-empting what may potentially be the next question. Why believe in God at all? My response would be a relationship with God and living your faith involves a lot more than simply obeying rules and ‘being good.’

Well said. Nothing there with which I would disagree. And you touch on something which is vitally important.

There have to be reasons for not doing something other than ‘God forbids it’. Even if that is the prime argument then there must be a reason for it in the first instance. God is unlikely to declare aspects of morality arbitrarily.

Surely it is not beyond anyone to look into the reasons for any given moral statement? I think it would be unnerving to have anyone suggest that they weren’t interested or didn’t care…that simply because God Sez So is good enough.

And there are secular reasons for all Catholic beliefs. And I agree with almost all of them. The ones I don’t are those that don’t stand up to investigation. And aren’t really critical in any case (does anyone care if I am actually married to my wife or if we had sex before we were marrid or we used contraception etc).

And you might note that the majority of the problem areas, even within Catholicism, concern sex in some way. Go figure…