Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Tomdstone]

You STILL haven’t answered my moral dilemma.

You answered it yourself.

… the scenario isn’t very plausible…

 

[Bradski]

If you say, “I demand of myself that I am obligated to obey my conscience” what prevents you from saying, “Now I release myself of this demand”?

Nothing.

 

[PRmerger]

Nothing.

Egg-zactly.

So no obligation at all.

Imagine if you told yourself, “Every time I come home drunk and say something mean to my family I will give $100 to AA.”

And then you come home drunk and say something mean to your family, but you say, “Well, I release myself of this obligation.”

That’s the same thing as: no obligation.

And that’s what the atheistic worldview endorses.

 

[Bradski]

Egg-zactly.

So no obligation at all.

Imagine if you told yourself, “Every time I come home drunk and say something mean to my family I will give $100 to AA.”

And then you come home drunk and say something mean to your family, but you say, “Well, I release myself of this obligation.”

That’s the same thing as: no obligation.

And that’s what the atheistic worldview endorses.

Where did I say I endorse that? I expressely do not endorse it, in fact. There is a personal obligation. Everyone has it. You simply asked what prevents me from not following through on it.

There is nothing at all. Just as there is nothing that prevents you or anyone else from ignoring ypur conscience. Everyone does it at some point, even yourself. So nothing stopped you. I generally follow through because I personally think it’s the right thing to do.

Oh, yeah…you have to answer to God. Well, if that didn’t stop you in the past, it’s not effective, is it. Even the threat of eternal damnation doesn’t stop people.

So the answer, not just for me, but for everyone, is: Nothing.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

He really does believe in objective moral law. Otherwise it would not upset him so much.

How on Earth would you know what I believe and what “upsets” me? Do you have direct access to my thoughts? For your information, I participate in these threads because they amuse me. Once in a blue moon I see something new which I did not know before. But that is very rare.

So the answer, not just for me, but for everyone, is: Nothing.

Of course. We follow our conscience because we agree with it. If we discover new facts, which would repudiate our prior convictions, we would change our conscience. And we would not be ashamed to admit it.

 

[PRmerger]

Where did I say I endorse that? I expressely do not endorse it, in fact. There is a personal obligation.

No. You have NO personal obligation.

If you say, “I must give $100 to AA every time I am drunk and mean to my family” you are under NO OBLIGATION to do this.

If you make the rules.

 

[Bradski]

No. You have NO personal obligation.

If you say, “I must give $100 to AA every time I am drunk and mean to my family” you are under NO OBLIGATION to do this.

If you make the rules.

Again, I have an obligation to myself. If I have decided what is the correct course of action, if I want to consider myself a moral person, then I am obligated to follow that course.

This is no different to you or anyone else. We all come to decide what is right or wrong and if we want to do what we consider to be right, then that forms the obligation to act in that way.

We are not compelled by it. Nobody is. We can, and always have done and will always do, what we have already decided is the wrong thing.

Again, you are no different. You decide what is right or wrong and the only person who makes it obligatory is…you.

Please don’t bother trying to convince me that Christians have some obligation that they compelled to follow. I could care less if anyone says they are compelled by their faith, by their beliefs, by their God, by the Magic Bunny. If that claim carried any weight then you should be able to show all Christians acting in the same moral manner all the time.

The fact that they don’t shows beyond any shadow of doubt whatsoever, that there is no obligation - except a personal one. Which, as I have said, we all ignore on times.

‘I am under an obligation because I am a Christian’ is an empty statement. Because all Christians make a personal decision whether to do right or not.

Again I will say that argung that you are compelled because you have to answer to God is a non starter. Everyone does wrong, so all Christians at some point make a personal decision not to bother with God. To do exactly what He would not want. Or maybe they play the get-out-jail card and decide to confess it later.

 

[PRmerger]

Again, I have an obligation to myself.

You are talking nonsense, luv.

You can’t say, “I am obligated” but also, “I am not obligated if I don’t want to”.

Obligation implies doing it EVEN IF YOU DON’T WANT TO.

 

[PRmerger]

Please don’t bother trying to convince me that Christians have some obligation that they compelled to follow. I could care less if anyone says they are compelled by their faith, by their beliefs, by their God, by the Magic Bunny.

Oh, geez. I hate to correct the grammar of people I like on CAFs, but I am, er… obligated to do so here. You mean you “couldn’t care less”.

If that claim carried any weight then you should be able to show all Christians acting in the same moral manner all the time.

This is a nonsequitur. The “then” doesn’t follow from the “if”.

‘I am under an obligation because I am a Christian’ is an empty statement. Because all Christians make a personal decision whether to do right or not.

No one ought to say “I am under an obligation because I am a Christian”.

We say, “I am under an obligation because there is a Moral Lawgiver”.

 

[Bradski]

We say, “I am under an obligation because there is a Moral Lawgiver”.

Then it doesn’t work, does it.

And there is a difference between being obligated and being compelled. My conscience obligates me. It doesn’t compell me.

Your moral lawgiver obligates you. It doesn’t compell you.

Nothing compells you. You make your own decision whether to follow your conscience or not. If that is not the case, then someone else must be doing it for you. Who makes the decision when you decide to do something wrong?

And thanks, but I don’t need instructions on idiomatic expressions.

 

[PRmerger]

Then it doesn’t work, does it.

Huh?

And there is a difference between being obligated and being compelled. My conscience obligates me. It doesn’t compell me.

Correct.

Your moral lawgiver obligates you. It doesn’t compell you

Right.

Nothing compells you. You make your own decision whether to follow your conscience or not. If that is not the case, then someone else must be doing it for you.

Right again.

Who makes the decision when you decide to do something wrong?

Ummm…I do.

And thanks, but I don’t need instructions on idiomatic expressions.

Really? Even if you’re presenting it incorrectly?

Do you tell your wife this, too, when you’re driving in the wrong direction, “Bradski, honey, you’re going south on Highway 270; we should be going north.”

“Mama Bradksi, thanks, but I don’t need instructions on directions. Just let me keep going the wrong way, thank you very much.”

 

[Pallas_Athene]

And if you could offer some documents from the Church which commanded such a thing, we can chat about this.

I am not interested what the “church commands”. I am only interested in what the members of the church say and do. And, yes, they most certainly burned a few heretics at the stake. And some others would love to incarcerate some “faggots” for their actions. I am glad you are not one of them.

I will enlighten you. The “church” is an institution. Institutions do not issue “commands”. Members of the institutions may issue commands. The church does not perform actions. The members of the church do. And everything what the members of the institutions proclaim or perform will reflect on the institution, unless some hierarchically “higher” members of the institution proclaim that they disagree with it. But of course, it would still be a personal preference on their part.

It would certainly be my preference to take a pill so I don’t get pregnant.

But my preference is subverted by the actual truth of our sexual natures.

You mean what you (personally) accept as “truth” - which is nothing but your preference. If you are willing to go against your preferences, that is your business. I feel sorry for you that you feel “compelled” to go against your natural inclination, but you are an adult, and I respect your decision - as long as it does not step on the toes of others.

Biology would dictate that the strongest squash the weakest.

You just exhibited your “impoverished understanding” of biology. It is much more complicated than that.

But I’m still confused as to how this is “the law of the jungle” and “guerilla warfare”.

Could you please x-plain?

Nope. Not until you understand that there are different levels of “preferences”. Your childish examples about the bridal costumes in the West and the Orient reveal that you have no idea what I am talking about. But, what the heck… I will help you. Certain preferences affect only the person who makes them (like the preference for spicy food). Other preferences affect other people as well (like rape). Do you understand the fundamental difference between the two different kinds? Being an incurable optimist I would hope that you do. But having seen your posts so far I am becoming a pessimist.

We say, “I am under an obligation because there is a Moral Lawgiver”.

I would very much love to talk with your “moral lawgiver”, to hear those “laws” straight from the “horse’s mouth” (if you are familiar with this euphemism – no, it is not a literal horse). I simply do not accept your word for it - no disrespect is implied or intended.

But I will tell you a secret. If a “law” is not enforced then it is not a “law”, it is merely a suggestion.

 

[PRmerger]

I am not interested what the “church commands”. I am only interested in what the members of the church say and do.

That’s fine.

Just as long as you don’t make the error of saying, “Bad Catholics do bad things therefore the Church cannot be right.”

That would be illogical.

 

[PRmerger]

You mean what you (personally) accept as “truth” - which is nothing but your preference.

Really?

So when I say that Manila is the capital of the Philippines I am expressing nothing but my preference?

Oh–wait. That’s a fact that Manila is the capital of the Philippines. So it can’t be my preference.

I am simply expressing…

an objective truth.

See?

Expressions of facts, whether they are geographical or moral, are NOT preferences, but are simply stating an objective truth.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope. Not until you understand that there are different levels of “preferences”.

LOL.

You aren’t going to try to back-pedal your “guerilla warfare” and “law of the jungle” comment into something like, “Surely you see that this was merely allegorical for ‘We look at a bully and examine his childhood and try to re-create it and re-formulate it so he no longer wants to rape someone.’ That’s what I meant by ‘guerilla warfare’. Surely you can see that, PR!”

Okey-dokey.

I may let this drop for now. Or maybe not, depending on whether the opportunity presents itself to remind you of this egregious, monstrous, vile moral code you advocated.

Which is, of course, a permissible moral code when one has an atheistic framework.

But having seen your posts so far I am becoming a pessimist.

Careful, PA. It’s good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

I would very much love to talk with your “moral lawgiver”, to hear those “laws” straight from the “horse’s mouth” (if you are familiar with this euphemism – no, it is not a literal horse). I simply do not accept your word for it - no disrespect is implied or intended.

But I will tell you a secret. If a “law” is not enforced then it is not a “law”, it is merely a suggestion.

Oh yeah. It’s enforced all right.

Where in the world would you get the idea that the Moral Lawgiver doesn’t enforce His Laws?

 

[PRmerger]

I would very much love to talk with your “moral lawgiver”, to hear those “laws”

How would this look to you? God speaking?

How would you know it’s not an alien?

Or something that science just hasn’t yet figured out?

straight from the “horse’s mouth” (if you are familiar with this euphemism – no, it is not a literal horse).

Oh, geez. I was going to let this drop, but since you brought it up…

Can you please offer some place, *other than in your own mind, *where " I will gather more people who agree with me, and beat the living daylight out of you" means “We will give him a fair trial and, if found guilty, imprison him”.

Some website where this euphemism is referenced?

Maybe in a book? Or in a list of common euphemisms?

Also, where can I find what you euphemistically meant for “guerilla warfare” and “law of the jungle”, esp. since you offered NO EXPLANATION for what you “allegorically” meant when you used these terms.

Also, the above “horse’s mouth” is an idiom. Not a euphemism.

 

[PRmerger]

For your information, I participate in these threads because they amuse me. Once in a blue moon I see something new which I did not know before. But that is very rare.

Yes. There seems to be something metaphysical which keeps drawing you back here.

And that, of course, is a very good thing.

It’s like the little boy who is banned from a candy shop for shoplifting. He creates an alter-ego and keeps returning, because he wants so very badly to enjoy what he sees others enjoying.

 

[PRmerger]

There is not ONE society which would base its constitution upon some Christian principles. The USA explicitly disavows them in the Treaty of Tripoli. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

I came across this today on Facebook:

“America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence; perhaps the only piece of practical politics that is also theoretical politics and also great literature.” G.K. Chesterton

 

[Pallas_Athene]

That’s fine.

Just as long as you don’t make the error of saying, “Bad Catholics do bad things therefore the Church cannot be right.”

That would be illogical.

Accepted. As long as you don’t say that “Good Catholics do good things, therefore the church cannot be wrong”.

Of course I still blame the “bad” catholics, and also those “good” (???) ones, who tolerate and/or hide the actions of those “bad” catholics and who have the power to prevent them. But that attitude (personal preference) applies to everyone, bad atheists and good atheists (if there would be any).

Expressions of facts, whether they are geographical or moral, are NOT preferences, but are simply stating an objective truth.

This sentence reveals the depth of your ignorance. There are NO moral facts, only opinions based upon preferences. If this so-called morality would be based upon facts, there could be no disagreement about them. But there are different opinions, even among catholics.

The water boils at 100 degrees Celsius (on the sea level under one ATM pressure - and ATM does not stand for Automated Teller Machine . That is a fact. The alkalinity of a substance can be measured with a litmus test. That also reveals a fact. But the maxim “Do not spare the rod” or “thou shalt not masturbate” are NOT facts, they are opinions.

Ethics does not deal with “IS”, it deals with “OUGHT”. That is why it is separated from metaphysics. This is another fact.

You aren’t going to try to back-pedal your “guerilla warfare” and “law of the jungle” comment into something like, “Surely you see that this was merely allegorical for ‘We look at a bully and examine his childhood and try to re-create it and re-formulate it so he no longer wants to rape someone.’ That’s what I meant by ‘guerilla warfare’. Surely you can see that, PR!”

Nope, that is not what I meant. But until you learn the difference between facts and opinions, there is no point to explain it.

Careful, PA. It’s good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

This periodic “threat” (disguised as a helpful advise) does not add anything to a dialog.

Oh yeah. It’s enforced all right.

Where in the world would you get the idea that the Moral Lawgiver doesn’t enforce His Laws?

Not here, where we could learn from some punishment and be encouraged by a reward. The Sun shines on the wicked and the righteous alike. Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. Not much of an “enforcement”.

How would this look to you? God speaking?

I will let him decide which is the best method. But no one here speaks for the “lawgiver”.

Also, the above “horse’s mouth” is an idiom. Not a euphemism.

Not a huge difference, but I accept your criticism. (Just to show you how it is done )

Yes. There seems to be something metaphysical which keeps drawing you back here.

You have this idée fixe about me and some imagined alter egos. You can safely drop it, and stick to actual arguments pertaining to the subject.

“America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence; perhaps the only piece of practical politics that is also theoretical politics and also great literature.” G.K. Chesterton

Chesterton may be a good mystery writer, but he does not know that the USA is founded on the constitution (a legal document) and NOT the Declaration of Independence (a nice but irrelevant writ). John Adams signed and the Senate ratified the Treaty of Tripoli, which explicitly says: “'The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion”. Can’t be any clearer than that.

 

[PRmerger]

Accepted. As long as you don’t say that “Good Catholics do good things, therefore the church cannot be wrong”.

LOL! I promise you I will never say that.

I will, however, assert this: only Believers can do acts of profound goodness and virtue, such as that which Maximilian Kolbe did. No atheist can do such a magnificent act of agape.

(NB: this is not to be interpreted as saying that atheists can’t be heroes. Of course they can. But making a supreme act of sacrifice out of love? Not so much).

Of course I still blame the “bad” catholics, and also those “good” (???) ones, who tolerate and/or hide the actions of those “bad” catholics and who have the power to prevent them.

As do I.

But that attitude (personal preference) applies to everyone, bad atheists and good atheists (if there would be any).

So let’s get this clear: you are saying that it’s just your preference to say that homosexuals shouldn’t be imprisoned for being SSA.

But someone else can have a different preference, and you’d be ok with that?

This sentence reveals the depth of your ignorance. There are NO moral facts, only opinions based upon preferences

So it’s just an opinion that rape is always wrong?

I want you to be clear about this: you will stand by this statement “Pallas Athene agrees that it’s his preference and opinion that rape is always wrong”?

If this so-called morality would be based upon facts, there could be no disagreement about them.

That’s, frankly, the most absurd thing I’ve read on this thread.

There is disagreement about whether we landed on the moon, immunizations are effective, whether the holocaust occurred, whether the earth is older than 6000 years…so it’s not a fact that we landed on the moon, immunizations are effective, the holocaust occurred and the earth is older than 6000 years?

Really?