P
PickyPicky
Guest
And for some vegans EGGS and BACON
- Status
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
My basis is that if you want to live in a society that protects YOU as well as others, you had better not resort to harming others. It is in YOUR self-interest not to do so, because otherwise, others have the right to get away with harming you as well. If you wish to add G-d to the equation, that is fine. However, understand that stealing is nonetheless not an absolute wrong under certain circumstances and according to certain religious beliefs, for example, when the alternative is death. And stealing may be defined in different ways as well: stealing ideas (cheating, plagiarism) according to both Church and State, which do not always agree. Likewise lying and even killing depend on the circumstances based on some religious beliefs, but do NOT depend on the circumstances based on others. So even with G-d, one is faced with a variety of INTERPRETATIONS regarding the commandments. The individual is still forced to make up his own mind regarding which moral values he holds and where and when those values are exempt.
Last edited:
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Objective according to whom? According to G-d; however, there are different subjective interpretations of what G-d’s objective standard is, so who is the arbiter of which interpretation is closest to the objective one?
P
PickyPicky
Guest
A moral decision is one in which we find that our moral sense is engaged. Our moral sense will normally determine the correct moral decision.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Our moral sense differs from individual to individual as well from one religion to another. For example, according to Jewish law, we are obligated to feed our pets before ourselves since they are not able to delay gratification. For a Jew who knows this, not doing so would engage their moral sense. For other Jews (and those of other faiths), perhaps not. Is this a moral decision for everyone? Apparently it is not.
Another example from Jewish law: we are not permitted to show unusual dexterity in the presence of disabled people. Again, for those who know this rule, their moral sense is engaged; for others, perhaps not.
Another example from Jewish law: we are not permitted to show unusual dexterity in the presence of disabled people. Again, for those who know this rule, their moral sense is engaged; for others, perhaps not.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
That’s probably because, around the edges, it isn’t.
E
Ender
Guest
Exactly, and in making that determination, it seems apparent that if morality is merely subjective then whatever I choose to do is moral to me. What other basis is there?
P
PickyPicky
Guest
It’s not a question of whatever you choose to do: you might or might not choose the moral option. But yes, what is moral to you is moral to you. How could it be otherwise?
D
Damian
Guest
There’s no such thing as Atheism. There is the pluralization of Atheist though, Atheists. But there is no -ism to being an atheist since it’s not a world view, belief system, political system, or any other filter that you use to address your decisions or interpretation of experienced reality. It’s just a statement that you are not convinced of someone else’s claim about reality in reference to the existence of the supernatural. That’s all being an atheist is. It’s a single position to a single question. Just like jury members on a trial. They start off at the default position of not believing the positive claim of the prosecution, aka the deist statement that the supernatural exists. At the end of the trial, there are jury members that are still not convinced of the prosecutor’s claim and they decide, ‘Not guilty’. Now do these jury members have a world view of ‘Not-Guilty-ism’? No, no they do not. In fact you can’t tell me any of the jury member’s world view, political stance, education level, religious or non-religious views, or anything else other than their conclusion of the question the trial was about.
There are world views that tend to have more atheist people in them, like secular humanist, skeptics, philosophical naturalists, etc. But you can still be religious and be part of these groups as well. Jewish community does this all the time. You can still believe in the supernatural and be apart of these groups as well. Scientists do this all the time, but they leave their supernatural beliefs out of the lab and out of their equations; Sir Francis Sellers Collins, head of the Human Genome project is an example of this.
So sorry but being an atheist is irrelevant to your philosophy as to how you come to conclusions to address the world.
There are world views that tend to have more atheist people in them, like secular humanist, skeptics, philosophical naturalists, etc. But you can still be religious and be part of these groups as well. Jewish community does this all the time. You can still believe in the supernatural and be apart of these groups as well. Scientists do this all the time, but they leave their supernatural beliefs out of the lab and out of their equations; Sir Francis Sellers Collins, head of the Human Genome project is an example of this.
So sorry but being an atheist is irrelevant to your philosophy as to how you come to conclusions to address the world.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
No, I expressed myself badly. There are areas — very large areas — of such general agreement that differing individual judgements are rare.
E
Ender
Guest
This is not an objection to my position of doing whatever is best for me, it is an argument about what is really best for me. I certainly agree that I want to live in a society that protects me, and I would surely want others to live by the Golden Rule, but it is not an argument that I should live that way. I would want to appear to live that way to reap societies benefits, but why would I live that way when it is not in my interest to do so?
Suppose for example I find a wallet full of money. If I don’t believe anyone will ever know I am the one who found it, why shouldn’t I keep the money? Or keep the money, return the wallet, and lie about the money ever being there? What is the “moral” argument that I should return the money?
I don’t. I am discussing morality in the absence of God.
E
Ender
Guest
I don’t wish to play word games here. I don’t care how you characterize an action. In choosing action A or action B, if I perceive A to be better for me, what is the argument that I shouldn’t do A regardless of what A is?
P
PickyPicky
Guest
The moral argument is made by your moral sense. What does it say?
P
PickyPicky
Guest
I think your question has now been answered several times.
E
Ender
Guest
Good, then there is no moral difference between the men who robbed the traveler, the priest who failed to help him, and the Good Samaritan who took care of him. They all did what they thought was right - in their eyes - and we have no right to say one action was more moral than the others since there is no objective moral standard.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
I beg to differ. It is indeed in YOUR interest to live by the Golden Rule since, if one were to find YOUR wallet, keep it and not return the money, that would harm YOU. This is how societies can and must function efficiently, that is, for the benefit of all. Those which do not function this way have much internal conflict. Thus morality, while based on individual behavior, has repercussions for the larger culture or society, with or without the existence of G-d.
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Not at all. Firstly we do not know whether they all did what they thought was right. Secondly I do not judge the morality of their actions by their moral standards but by mine.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Except I would stress the point that our moralities are overwhelmingly aligned.
E
Ender
Guest
No, it is only in my best interest to appear to live that way and to argue that you should live that way. First of all, in our current society, most people would be pleasantly surprised if they lost a wallet and someone actually returned it, so my not returning one would hardly change that perception.
Let’s use a specific example. In 1535 Thomas More was beheaded by Henry VIII. He was convicted at trial on the perjured testimony of Richard Rich. Rich was well rewarded and went on to fame and fortune, dying in his bed as an old - and very wealthy - man. Given that his perjury led to More’s death, but to his own fortune, why would we not say that Rich was morally justified in committing perjury? It was certainly in his best interest to do so, so how can we possibly condemn it?
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
As far as I know, no one in my parish does any of these things. You might consider changing parishes. 
- Status