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

[Peter_J]

And yet everyone does, Catholic or otherwise. We find it impossible to understand how anyone could have thought slavery or child labor or only educating boys, etc., was moral. In 200 years time, people will look back at us and find it impossible to understand some of our morality.

There is a very strong emotional content to morality. The Samaritan feels pity. We can’t consciously calculate pity, we feel it. Just as we feel anger at injustice. The feelings well up from our unconscious - “the requirements of the law are written on their hearts”.

You may not like the messiness and may feel you have a better mousetrap. But Catholic or otherwise, atheist or otherwise, we’re not computers so you can’t amputate our feelings of common sense. After all, lacking or suppressing those emotions is a mental disorder - psychopathy.

Indeed. I forget which poster but someone here mentioned “broken moral compass” which I think is a pretty good image … noting that it doesn’t say “no moral compass” but rather a flawed one.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And for the umpteenth time, you can’t use Aquinas in a dispute with an atheist. First, he’s a Catholic theologian. Second, his “natural law” appeals to the self-evident metaphysical - which is rejected by a materialist approach. Additionally, as the metaphysical assumes the existence of underlying, driving deity, which an atheist also rejects, “natural law” cannot be used.

It may interest you to know that atheist Ayn Rand actually did invoke natural law with respect to moral questions. She was one of those rare atheists that could not abide moral relativism and had great respect for objective truth. One of her friends irritated her by suggesting she read some Aquinas, with who she unknowingly was agreeing. As I recall, she did not take him up on the offer.

 

[inocente]

Tragically absurd.

However, despite this barefaced and failed attempt at a red herring to steer the focus away from your weak rhetoric, these facts remain:

“Common sense”, when used in an argument, is a perfect example of the ad populum fallacy. While the construct may still have use, such use exists outside the context of debate - particularly apologetics.

Aquinas’ “Natural Law” exists because of “God’s will in accordance with his eternal plan”, per the text. Thus, your claim that “[Aquinas] believed God is rational and so his natural law doesn’t need to appeal to divinity” is absolutely, demonstrably false.

Next, you claim that “Your (Vonsalza’s) assertion that metaphysics relies on a deity is … just weird” is also flatly refuted by the text. “On the side of metaphysics, it is clear that the natural law view is incompatible with atheism: one cannot have a theory of divine providence without a divine being.”
As it relates to morality (the purpose of this thread), there is no metaphysical morality without a divine driver.

The article you quoted is the one I cited to you earlier . You’ve cherry picked quotes out of context to arrive at a wrong conclusion.

The logic of any system of natural law ethics relies on natural goods. Aquinas follows Aristotle in basing his goods on human nature (see section 2). God is the author of human nature for Aquinas, but the logic of his ethics doesn’t rely on that at all. As the first sentence you quoted says, it relies on “the principles of practical rationality”. The article even tells you where Aquinas argues for that - “The precepts of the natural law are also knowable by nature. All human beings possess a basic knowledge of the principles of the natural law (ST IaIIae 94, 4).” By which he echos Romans 2:14-15 of course.

Your weird claim that metaphysics relies on a deity is also due to rampant cherry picking. Read the sentence before the one you quoted.

It’s like talking to someone who has only read the Reader’s Digest abridged version of Aquinas *.

• The Reader’s Digest abridged version of Gone With The Wind: “There was a war. Things went badly for Scarlett. Frankly I don’t give a damn said Rhett. The end.”

*Unless, of course, the Philosophy Department at Stanford has it wrong and a Spanish Baptist commenter on a Catholic forum has it right.

If you want to cry “racism” when your arguments are flatly refuted, knock yourself out. You alone bear the consequences for that childish behavior.*

That article, like almost all on the SEP, was not written in-house, as you’d find out if you read to the bottom of the page.

I’ve not said anything is wrong with the article, far from it. Btw email the principle editor at Stanford if you think there are any mistakes, he always sends thanks in return.

But again, what is me being Spanish got to do with anything? And after you called me a Spanish donkey (btw I think “donkey” is actually a racial slur for Irish in America). Even if you just meant to imply I’m personally thick and stubborn, if you did more research you might have less need for insults and all the extemporizing on the hoof.

 

[Vonsalza]

The article you quoted is the one I cited to you earlier . You’ve cherry picked quotes out of context to arrive at a wrong conclusion.

Please, then expand the specific quotes to show how they were misused.

The logic of any system of natural law ethics relies on natural goods.

Circular reasoning. “Natural because it’s natural.” When someone questions it, the best response you have is “It’s natural!” When they ask you to prove it, you reply “It’s self-evident!”

Not good enough for an atheist materialist, I’m afraid. They also deny the self-evidence of God.

…Aquinas argues for that - “The precepts of the natural law are also knowable by nature. All human beings possess a basic knowledge of the principles of the natural law (ST IaIIae 94, 4).” By which he echos Romans 2:14-15 of course.

Of course. He’s a theist using a text premised in theism to argue a concept created by a theos. As an atheist rejects the concept of theos, that makes these texts unusable as support for secular morality, even if you can’t or won’t see why.

Your weird claim that metaphysics relies on a deity is also due to rampant cherry picking. Read the sentence before the one you quoted.

This?

If Aquinas’s view is paradigmatic of the natural law position, and these two theses — that from the God’s-eye point of view, it is law through its place in the scheme of divine providence, and from the human’s-eye point of view, it constitutes a set of naturally binding and knowable precepts of practical reason — are the basic features of the natural law as Aquinas understands it, then it follows that paradigmatic natural law theory is incompatible with several views in metaphysics and moral philosophy.

It’s talking about the same philosophy, just from the two different supposed paradigms of “god” and “man”. And then gives this objection for the secular view:

On the side of metaphysics, it is clear that the natural law view is incompatible with atheism: one cannot have a theory of divine providence without a divine being.
(Emphases mine)

No “cherry picking” involved. Just basic literacy. An atheist doesn’t get to appeal to “natural law”, especially using the brilliant, but dependently theistic philosophy of Aquinas.

That article, like almost all on the SEP, was not written in-house, as you’d find out if you read to the bottom of the page.

Unless Stanford had/has every philosopher in history on their faculty, of course it wasn’t written in-house. They’ve only endorsed it by citing it on their official university website.

So because a source you’ve used seems to refute you quite firmly on your errant views on secular natural law, you’d like to question its legitimacy? Perhaps they are racists too?

 

[Vonsalza]

It may interest you to know that atheist Ayn Rand actually did invoke natural law with respect to moral questions. She was one of those rare atheists that could not abide moral relativism and had great respect for objective truth. One of her friends irritated her by suggesting she read some Aquinas, with who she unknowingly was agreeing. As I recall, she did not take him up on the offer.

Sure! It’s not a rare thing to find atheists trying to appeal to something that they attempt to label as “natural law”.

The problems arise when you try to get two atheists to fully agree on what does and does not embody natural law. “Natural law” seems to die the same materialist death that “god” does, as “self-evidence” is a dubious concept for an atheist - especially as it applies to the abstract and metaphysical.

Check out that article that was cited and look at the lists of what consists of “natural goods”. No two lists are the same.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Sure! It’s not a rare thing to find atheists trying to appeal to something that they attempt to label as “natural law”.

The problems arise when you try to get two atheists to fully agree on what does and does not embody natural law. “Natural law” seems to die the same materialist death that “god” does, as “self-evidence” is a dubious concept for an atheist - especially as it applies to the abstract and metaphysical.

Check out that article that was cited and look at the lists of what consists of “natural goods”. No two lists are the same.

Exactly!

Even assuming the natural law, without divine guidance moral relativism will prevail.

 

[inocente]

The problems arise when you try to get two atheists to fully agree on what does and does not embody natural law. “Natural law” seems to die the same materialist death that “god” does, as “self-evidence” is a dubious concept for an atheist - especially as it applies to the abstract and metaphysical.

Check out that article that was cited and look at the lists of what consists of “natural goods”. No two lists are the same.

Amazing. You didn’t even recognize that those -]lists/-] catalogs were produced by well-known Catholic philosophers: Germain Grisez is at Mount St. Mary’s Catholic University, John Finnis teaches at Notre Dame, Mark Murphy holds the Fr. Joseph T. Durkin S.J. Chair in Philosophy at Georgetown.

Please, then expand the specific quotes to show how they were misused.

Read the whole article and don’t mine quotes.

inocente;14576127:

The logic of any system of natural law ethics relies on natural goods.

Circular reasoning. “Natural because it’s natural.” When someone questions it, the best response you have is “It’s natural!” When they ask you to prove it, you reply “It’s self-evident!”

Not good enough for an atheist materialist, I’m afraid. They also deny the self-evidence of God.

Why do you think it’s called natural law? Because it relies on nature.

*Of course. He’s a theist using a text premised in theism to argue a concept created by a theos. As an atheist rejects the concept of theos, that makes these texts unusable as support for secular morality, even if you can’t or won’t see why.

This?

No “cherry picking” involved. Just basic literacy. An atheist doesn’t get to appeal to “natural law”, especially using the brilliant, but dependently theistic* philosophy of Aquinas.

Unless Stanford had/has every philosopher in history on their faculty, of course it wasn’t written in-house. They’ve only endorsed it by citing it on their official university website.

So because a source you’ve used seems to refute you quite firmly on your errant views on secular natural law, you’d like to question its legitimacy?

So now I’m illiterate too.

Perhaps they are racists too?

First you make racist insults, now you bait me with them.

Instead of taunting me, if you dispute that your insults were racist then report me to the moderator. I will be reporting you if I see you make racist remarks to anyone else. As for this thread I’m calling it a day, your lack of understanding of ethics isn’t worth the effort and the constant stream of insults.

 

[Vonsalza]

So much sputtering…

Per the article, Aquinas relies on “nature” as constructed by “God’s will in accordance with his eternal plan”. This is not a secular idea; even if you really, really want it to be.

The self-evidence of “secular natural law” dies from the same lance that kills the “self-evident god” for the materialist; even if you really, really wish it weren’t so.

You claim I cherry-picked, and should duly include the sentence immediately prior to the quote. I met your request and your insistence on cherry-picking didn’t change. Per Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, that perfectly meets the criteria of a person who refuses to be rationally convinced by the evidence they themselves request, and should thus be dismissed.

Moreover, you’ve yet to internalize the fact that “common sense” is indeed an ad populum, which makes it useless in arguments and debate - particularly when the discussion is over what it includes.

As for this thread I’m calling it a day

That’s probably best. Nice chatting.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Amazing. You didn’t even recognize that those -]lists/-] catalogs were produced by well-known Catholic philosophers: Germain Grisez is at Mount St. Mary’s Catholic University, John Finnis teaches at Notre Dame, Mark Murphy holds the Fr. Joseph T. Durkin S.J. Chair in Philosophy at Georgetown.

As usual, your knowledge of what the Catholic theologians say or do is pretty impressive for a Baptist. Are you studying to be a Catholic. Or are you, as I have long suspected and continue to believe, merely executing a policy of sowing division among Catholics, as if we were not already good enough at doing that to ourselves?

 

[Vonsalza]

As usual, your knowledge of what the Catholic theologians say or do is pretty impressive for a Baptist. Are you studying to be a Catholic. Or are you, as I have long suspected and continue to believe, merely executing a policy of sowing division among Catholics, as if we were not already good enough at doing that to ourselves?

I think the prime issue there was the assumption that all faculty at nominally Catholic schools are Catholics. For example, my oldest sister is on the faculty at a Catholic school. She is not Catholic.

But in general, protestants of all stripes resort to obfuscation because the lack of clarity is absolutely essential to their theological survival. If the Church is visible, authoritative and ancient, then it is certainly not protestant.