“But Jeez Brad, keep it, it’s a $grand!” We see this thinking all the time…
A rule that says theft is contrary to love of God and love of neighbour (i.e. morally wrong) seems somehow more altruistic than one that says “whatever comes around goes around”.
It does indeed seem more altruistic. That’s why people cling so much to the illusion that moral laws dictate our actions when it is our actions that have determined moral laws.
The rational reason for an atheist to conduct a moral life is that a moral life “works”. It’s effective.
Isn’t that the best possible reason?
Morality is designed to enable people to make good decisions. The problem with just following the crowd in altruism is that a poorly formed morality does not always stand up against tests.
Morality isn’t designed. No-one sat down and devised a system of morality that would cover all problems from first principles. Morality is a reflection of how we react to problems. And how we react is generally in built. Hard wired. As I said, it’s a requirement for civilisation. And altruism isn’t learnt. It’s innate. It doesn’t emerge as a consequence of ‘following the crowd’. Even young children exhibit it before they reach an age where it could be the result of rational decision making.
If you like, you can maintain that it’s God given so you can claim it as being Christian and wax lyrical about Morality and a Moral Law Giver (all in upper case of course).
And so it came to pass:
Fortunately, most atheists borrow, without acknowledging, from the Believer’s Model.
To take this back to the OP - whether or not one is a believer, there are surely numerous sensible practical and societal reasons why sex before marriage is bad. Then for us that word bad becomes sin.
You are quite right. There are reasons why extra marital sex could be bad. But to say that the reasons are applicable in all cases and at all times is absurd.
What we have is a claim to morality on the part of atheists without:
- knowing what morality is
- having any reference point whatsoever as a basis for moral evaluations, other than vague appeals to popular opinion and orientations, which in the end are proven to be quicksand.
There appears to be some mysterious access Christians have to answers to moral problems that atheists do not have. They believe in a Moral Law (mustn’t forget the upper case!) and therefore there must be a Moral Lawgiver and therefore…well, therefore what? It seems to be suggested that Christians then have access to what ought to be done as opposed to just, well I don’t know, expressing a personal opinion.
So sex outside marriage is wrong. Look, it says here and here and it taught there and Jesus said it (or more accurately was reported to have said it) and so it must be right. As opposed to the atheists who have to work these things out themselves. You know, give concrete, real life, relevant reasons for something being right or wrong. To look for actual consequences of a given act. Which, wouldn’t you know, Catholics seem to do as well and there have been numerous examples in this thread. So what’s the difference in how we approach problems?
It turns out that there is none. Except for the fact that Catholics have a limited set of specific moral rules that they are meant to follow and which they can declare to be inherently correct, such as extra marital sex. But even in a case such as that, Catholics are required to give concrete, real life, relevant reasons for it being wrong. Otherwise anyone who simply makes an appeal to authority is simply going to be ignored. Hence the concrete, real life reasons given for not indulging in premarital sex and for disallowing SSM and for not playing with your own genitalia.
As Blue Eyed Lady mentioned, Sam Harris is of the belief that we can determine what is right or wrong by straightforward reasonable arguments. Should we use drones? Is factory farming acceptable? Should medical marijuana be available? I can’t recall seeing any of these problems being addressed in the bible. I can’t recall Jesus talking about the acceptable number of chickens per square metre. So how do Catholics differ to atheists in their approach to these problems? The simple answer is: They don’t. A Catholic is fully justified in saying that we ought not to direct an air strike at a hospital or we ought not to pack a hundred chooks into a one metre square pen. As is an atheist. But for a Catholic to baldly state that his ‘ought’ carries more weight than an atheist ‘ought’ simply because he believes in a Moral Lawgiver is frankly absurd.
At the very least, religious practice seems to point one to an objcective standard of reference for the good, as opposed to the atheist insistence that no such objective standards are available.
So please point me to the standard of reference for determining the morality of factory farming.
Where are the standards? You can ask me a number of moral questions to which I will provide specific moral evaluations.
You have one. How do you determine what we ‘ought’ to do and how will it differ from how I approach the same problem?
