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

[Vera_Ljuba]

Again, the argument is not mine in the first place and no-one has mentioned committing acts. Just permitting.

There is NO significant difference between committing and permitting. If one is in the position to prevent an undesirable action, and that interference can be performed without any personal risk, then the person’s lack of interference is as despicable as the actual action.

Just imagine: there is a kid playing next to a deep crevasse. You can foresee that he will fall to his death. And when the kid actually falls in and dies, you try to defend your inaction by saying: “I did not push him. I am innocent of any wrongdoing. Don’t blame me! Sure, I saw him losing his balance. Sure I saw him teetering on the edge. Sure, I could have grabbed him in time. So what? I did not push him!” No one would accept such a ridiculous excuse.

As an extra argument, let’s consider that in most cases the law is crystal clear: “If you witness an accident, then you are required to stop and render assistance to your best ability. Failing to do so is a criminal act and will be punished.”

The attempt to exonerate God for non-interference by stipulating that God merely allowed the evil act to happen, but did not do it himself is incredibly lame. The sad thing is that no matter how many times it is pointed out, there will be some believers who will reiterate it.

 

[minkymurph]

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.

If God Sez something is wrong then God had reason. I don’t see what is wrong with wanting to know what the reasons are, and would also say it would make your faith more meaningful.

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…

Who said atheists and theist’s couldn’t reach a consensus?

You just had to spoil it with the final comment.

‘Go figure?’ Is this a statement of believe in the absence of evidence? :tsktsk:

I ask as telling someone to ‘Go figure’ implies in your view they have either not yet done so or not so to your satisfaction.

It also implies you believe you have the authority to tell me what to do, know something I don’t or know better which doesn’t appeal to me - any more than a synonymous statement from me would appeal to you.

As for what you may or not have done with your wife - not my business and I would prefer not to know. There is such a thing as too much information.

Likewise - others sex lives aren’t your business. Problems areas for Catholics regarding sex aren’t your concern unless your affected in some way. It’s their prerogative to work that out their own way.

 

[minkymurph]

Just imagine: there is a kid playing next to a deep crevasse. You can foresee that he will fall to his death. And when the kid actually falls in and dies, you try to defend your inaction by saying: “I did not push him. I am innocent of any wrongdoing. Don’t blame me! Sure, I saw him losing his balance. Sure I saw him teetering on the edge. Sure, I could have grabbed him in time. So what? I did not push him!” No one would accept such a ridiculous excuse.

Would you advocate a ‘Good Samaritan’ law?

I use term as this is the layman’s term for the particular law I am thinking of. They don’t have a ‘Good Samaritan’ law in the UK. They do in France which is arguably the secular state of Europe.

I’m an advocate of a ‘Good Samaritan’ law. The reason is people have died in the UK because we don’t have one.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

?? Read the post again. I did not refer to any deity but to common sense (the OP’s title). The question of the immorality of murder was not evaded but clearly answered. The logic is pure humanism.

You’re a newbie in this forum so spending some time in examining the prior responses to recurring questions may be helpful. Here’s post #106 from “A More Localized Version of the Argument From Morality.”

With a rational atheist, an agreement on an argument from reason could be the basis for determining an objective morality:

• All human beings have the same specifically human needs.
• We cannot ever say that we ought or ought not to need something.
• The words “ought” and “ought not” apply only to wants, never to needs.
• The good life, the pursuit of happiness, can only be lived if one’s needs are met.
• One’s pursuit of happiness can be seriously impaired if one is enslaved, if one’s health is maimed, if one is deprived of sufficient wealth, if one is kept in ignorance, if one is isolated from other human beings.
• Therefore, in order to live a good life a human needs are life, liberty, knowledge, friends, health and a modicum of wealth.
• Human needs translate into human rights.
• An obligation to respect those rights exists in oneself, in others or in the community.

 

[o_mlly]

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

What? Senseless people on this thread? I admit I haven’t read all the posts, so I must defer.

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.

One who holds another as slave may respect the slave’s right to life but not the slave’s right to freedom. I think there is value in keeping the two needs separate.

Do you have that moral rape case ready yet?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Would you advocate a ‘Good Samaritan’ law?

I use term as this is the layman’s term for the particular law I am thinking of. They don’t have a ‘Good Samaritan’ law in the UK. They do in France which is arguably the secular state of Europe.

I’m an advocate of a ‘Good Samaritan’ law. The reason is people have died in the UK because we don’t have one.

Yes, I would. But the funny thing is that you selected the least important part of my short post and neglected the important part. Let me repeat: “there is only a semantical difference between committing and act and permitting it”. If someone is in the position to prevent an undesirable act (especially if no harm can come to him), and fails to do so, he is exactly as despicable as the actual perpetrator. Strange that this has been pointed out many times during the years, and no believer could argue against it. Or even attempted it.

 

[minkymurph]

Yes, I would. But the funny thing is that you selected the least important part of my short post and neglected the important part.

I selected it on the basis that for me it was most significant part of your post. I personally don’t think of this as a funny thing, but you are entitled to disagree.

Let me repeat: “there is only a semantical difference between committing and act and permitting it”. If someone is in the position to prevent an undesirable act (especially if no harm can come to him), and fails to do so, he is exactly as despicable as the actual perpetrator. Strange that this has been pointed out many times during the years, and no believer could argue against it. Or even attempted it.

To state no believer could ever argue against it you would have to; define ‘in the position to prevent,’ what renders an act ‘undesirable,’ remove and replace the word ‘fail’ as failing to do something is not the same thing as not doing anything at all, and consider potential defenses as in the absence of any defense whatsoever what you have created is an absolute. Unless of course your position is some morals and principles are absolute?

As to your comment ‘strange that this has been pointed out many times,’ I can’t say for certain what exactly is it you are getting at but I would guess where you are coming from is if there was a God He would not let bad things happen to good people. Bad things do happen to good people thus there is no God? If this is inaccurate feel free to correct me. If it is what you are getting at you are correct, it has been pointed out many times. It has also been answered many times. It may not have been answered in your view satisfactorily, and is your prerogative to determine your standard of sufficiency, but where we repeatedly state the same arguments, are met with same responses and can in fact preempt what they will be we have two choices; we can change tack, continue to flog the dead horse, or give ourselves a big pat on the back for being right and coming up with a question our respective opponent cannot answer to our satisfaction, or agree to differ and let it lie. The choice one makes depends on what one wishes to achieve.

 

[Peter_J]

Does God decree that which is moral or is it moral because God decrees it?

Well, there can be cases where something is moral because God decrees it (e.g. Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit is generally considered a sin of disobedience) but not in a “Might makes right” sense.

 

[minkymurph]

A fundamental element of skilled and effective negotiation or debate is deciding in advance what you are prepared to concede and what you are not. Those who are not prepared to concede anything are generally unskilled and ineffective in negotiations and debates and for this reason frequently fail to achieve their objectives.

In exchanges between atheists and theist on any issue, neither side is going to concede their respective positions on the existence of God. Even where they begin to have doubts as to their position, they are never going to concede it in a debate. If the objective of the debate is to obtain that concession on either side, the debate is futile. Futile debates are fine where they are good humored and amicable, but once they become acrimonious they become counter-productive in that both sides can become even further entrenched in their positions further polarizing them.

Concerning fundamental issues that effect us all we can choose polarization, or consensus through negotiation. Personally I prefer the latter.

 

[Peter_J]

On another thread yesterday, you and I agreed that morality and conscience are intrinsic and fundamental elements of what it is to be human.

Something which surprised me is that some Catholics on CAF are out-and-out utilitarians.

I think it would be surprising if there weren’t any Catholics who were utilitarians – considering that there are over a billion of us!

 

[EnosJadon]

You’re a newbie in this forum so spending some time in examining the prior responses to recurring questions may be helpful.

I understand and appreciate that in forums such as this one assumptions must be made, but in this case you’re mistaken. I’ve been on this forum far longer than this particular screen name would indicate, and I’ve been an active participant on BBS’s since the early 1980’s with my Commodore 64 and a 300 baud modem. So yeah, I kinda know how this works.

With that in mind, let’s go over your argument again to see if it holds up.

• All human beings have the same specifically human needs.
• We cannot ever say that we ought or ought not to need something.
• The words “ought” and “ought not” apply only to wants, never to needs.
• The good life, the pursuit of happiness, can only be lived if one’s needs are met.
• One’s pursuit of happiness can be seriously impaired if one is enslaved, if one’s health is maimed, if one is deprived of sufficient wealth, if one is kept in ignorance, if one is isolated from other human beings.
• Therefore, in order to live a good life a human needs are life, liberty, knowledge, friends, health and a modicum of wealth.
• Human needs translate into human rights.
• An obligation to respect those rights exists in oneself, in others or in the community.

Now let’s accept for the sake of argument, bullet point number one. That human beings have the same specifically human needs. Which are outlined in bullet point number six. But it could be argued that the most fundamental human need of all is missing, the need to have children. In fact some would argue that that’s the very purpose of life, and yet your list neglected to include it. Why? Surely having children is a greater need than having a “modicum of wealth”, whatever that is exactly. The need to have children is most likely overlooked because it’s the most problematic. It can bring one person’s needs into conflict with another person’s needs.

Which points out the weakness in most humanistically centered moral constructs such as this one…what to do when our needs conflict? And who’s the arbiter of such conflicts? Theism neatly answers that question…God is. In every single grey area, where human constructs fail, God doesn’t. It’s the understanding that there’s an ultimate arbiter of right and wrong that makes theism so effective, and so attractive.

So I’ll ask again, how do you know that murder and rape are immoral?

Remember, I can always argue that the most fundamental human need is to ensure the survival of one’s offspring by whatever means necessary. And that anything that aids me in that effort is therefore moral.

But the question actually goes much deeper than a mere humanistic construct. It’s like looking at something beautiful and trying to put into words why it’s beautiful. Sure, you can express it as the result of composition, and symmetry, and color, but the truth is that you don’t consciously consider these things, you just innately know when something is beautiful. In the same manner one doesn’t need to rationalize morality, one innately knows it…but how?

Is it genetics? Is it teaching? Is it upbringing? Is it cultural influences? Is it experiences? Is it the divine spirit within you? How do you innately know when something is immoral? That’s the question.

As an aside, Bradski may not be able to think of a situation in which rape is justifiable, but I can.

 

[minkymurph]

As an aside, Bradski may not be able to think of a situation in which rape is justifiable, but I can.

Do tell - I think I can guess what it might be.

 

[EnosJadon]

Do tell - I think I can guess what it might be.

Ah, as an old hat at forums such as this one, you learn that sometimes it’s better to let things simmer. So that people have time to contemplate the question until they’re absolutely certain that you’re wrong.

 

[minkymurph]

Ah, as an old hat at forums such as this one, you learn that sometimes it’s better to let things simmer. So that people have time to contemplate the question until they’re absolutely certain that you’re wrong.

Oh you tempter.

I’m simmering.:tanning:

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

To state no believer could ever argue against it you would have to; define ‘in the position to prevent,’ what renders an act ‘undesirable,’ remove and replace the word ‘fail’ as failing to do something is not the same thing as not doing anything at all, and consider potential defenses as in the absence of any defense whatsoever what you have created is an absolute. Unless of course your position is some morals and principles are absolute?

Sorry, that is not the way the cookie crumbles. I cannot imagine that anyone would need a “definition” of what it means to be “in the position to prevent something”. Also what is “undesirable”. Just use those few examples in post #261. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14518786&postcount=261)

As to your comment ‘strange that this has been pointed out many times,’ I can’t say for certain what exactly is it you are getting at but I would guess where you are coming from is if there was a God He would not let bad things happen to good people. Bad things do happen to good people thus there is no God? If this is inaccurate feel free to correct me.

It is incorrect. God is supposed to be “loving and good”. And someone, who allows gratuitous suffering happen to anyone, is neither “loving nor good”. And this argument needs no support either, because it is the definition of being “loving and good”. I suspect that you might counter this by arguing that I am not in the position to say that the Holocaust (for example) was gratuitous suffering. Well, you (or any other apologist) are welcome to point out that the Holocaust was the best thing since sliced bread, that allowing the incineration of all those people is a clear sign that God “loves us more than we shall ever know”. Just type in “hunger in Africa” into Google, and select “images”. google.com/search?q=hunger+in+africa&biw=1536&bih=783&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwilncbliMDSAhWI4CYKHZywBSwQ_AUIBigB

---

There are two ways the believers try to whitewash God’ non-interference.

One is what I mentioned above, by appealing to our “ignorance”. Summing it up: “you are not omniscient, and if only you would have all the information, then you would agree with God’s non-interventionist policy”. Since God is notoriously silent and the apologists are unable to provide any “defense”, this kind of argument unworthy of consideration.

The other one is appealing to the “free will”. It says: “God does not interfere with the actions of psychopaths and sociopaths, because that would eliminate their free will, and that is even worse than those measly little rapes, tortures and murders.” If one points out that the free will of the victims is “overlooked” by allowing the actions of the perpetrators go unhindered, they say that the free will of the victims is intact, they are merely unable to act on that free will.

Both of these are ridiculous. If you need further explanations why are these defenses irrational, let me know. No one, ever was able to present a semi-rational argument for the so-called “problem of evil”.

 

[minkymurph]

Sorry, that is not the way the cookie crumbles. I cannot imagine that anyone would need a “definition” of what it means to be “in the position to prevent something”. Also what is “undesirable”. Just use those few examples in post #261. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14518786&postcount=261)

It is incorrect. God is supposed to be “loving and good”. And someone, who allows gratuitous suffering happen to anyone, is neither “loving nor good”. And this argument needs no support either, because it is the definition of being “loving and good”. I suspect that you might counter this by arguing that I am not in the position to say that the Holocaust (for example) was gratuitous suffering. Well, you (or any other apologist) are welcome to point out that the Holocaust was the best thing since sliced bread, that allowing the incineration of all those people is a clear sign that God “loves us more than we shall ever know”. Just type in “hunger in Africa” into Google, and select “images”. google.com/search?q=hunger+in+africa&biw=1536&bih=783&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwilncbliMDSAhWI4CYKHZywBSwQ_AUIBigB

---

There are two ways the believers try to whitewash God’ non-interference.

One is what I mentioned above, by appealing to our “ignorance”. Summing it up: “you are not omniscient, and if only you would have all the information, then you would agree with God’s non-interventionist policy”. Since God is notoriously silent and the apologists are unable to provide any “defense”, this kind of argument unworthy of consideration.

The other one is appealing to the “free will”. It says: “God does not interfere with the actions of psychopaths and sociopaths, because that would eliminate their free will, and that is even worse than those measly little rapes, tortures and murders.” If one points out that the free will of the victims is “overlooked” by allowing the actions of the perpetrators go unhindered, they say that the free will of the victims is intact, they are merely unable to act on that free will.

Both of these are ridiculous. If you need further explanations why are these defenses irrational, let me know. No one, ever was able to present a semi-rational argument for the so-called “problem of evil”.

Looks like you’ve pretty much got it worked out then and elected option 3 outlined in #269.

If you don’t mind I’ll decline your offer of further explanations as this dead horse has been flogged on another thread. I doubt either of us could say anything the other has not heard before nor enlighten each other any further.

 

[Bradski]

What? Senseless people on this thread? I admit I haven’t read all the posts, so I must defer.

One who holds another as slave may respect the slave’s right to life but not the slave’s right to freedom. I think there is value in keeping the two needs separate.

Do you have that moral rape case ready yet?

As regards common sense, the OP itself is actually questioning its use in cases of morality.

And as regards ‘moral rape’, see post 241.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Looks like you’ve pretty much got it worked out then and elected option 3 outlined in #269.

If you don’t mind I’ll decline your offer of further explanations as this dead horse has been flogged on another thread. I doubt either of us could say anything the other has not heard before nor enlighten each other any further.

As you wish. That poor horse has been flogged in many threads and many times. It “refuses” to die. Just for your amusement, I suggest that you click on this link infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html and read it. It is a summary of all the different attempts, which try to explain (away) the “problem of evil”. Maybe you find some of them successful. If you do, I would appreciate if you pointed out which one(s) should be taken seriously.

 

[minkymurph]

As you wish. That poor horse has been flogged in many threads and many times. It “refuses” to die. Just for your amusement, I suggest that you click on this link infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html and read it. It is a summary of all the different attempts, which try to explain (away) the “problem of evil”. Maybe you find some of them successful. If you do, I would appreciate if you pointed out which one(s) should be taken seriously.

There is nothing I could say to anyone who is entrenched in their position - irrespective of what that position is and irrespective of how sound my arguments are - of anything to the contrary.

 

[o_mlly]

I understand and appreciate that in forums such as this one assumptions must be made, but in this case you’re mistaken. …

No assumption: “Join Date: February 23, 2013."
Why you use multiple aliases is of course your business.

… But it could be argued that the most fundamental human need of all is missing, the need to have children.

Deflection. While the facts that many celibates live good lives and flourish belie your claim of a human need to propagate, nevertheless, I did not claim my list of human needs to be inclusive. Focus on the issue: is murder moral? The answer is no if one merely has a single right – the right to life.

Which points out the weakness in most humanistically centered moral constructs such as this one…what to do when our needs conflict?

Non sequtior. Unless you claim murder is a morally acceptable conflict resolution.

So I’ll ask again, how do you know that murder and rape are immoral?

Asked and answered twice now.

Remember, I can always argue that the most fundamental human need is to ensure the survival of one’s offspring by whatever means necessary. And that anything that aids me in that effort is therefore moral.

So far it is merely a claim. Make the logical argument.

But the question actually goes much deeper than a mere humanistic construct. It’s like looking at something beautiful and trying to put into words why it’s beautiful. Sure, you can express it as the result of composition, and symmetry, and color, but the truth is that you don’t consciously consider these things, you just innately know when something is beautiful. In the same manner one doesn’t need to rationalize morality, one innately knows it…but how?

This is not the “poetic” forum. No one will argue with others about how one feels about anything. Please make*** logical*** arguments to support claims about what you think.