Non-theistic foundation of morality!

[Gorgias]

There is no right to life. The Declaration of Independence notwithstanding. It is just a very nice and naïve document (just my suggestion in this thread. )

Fine. In your OP, you suggested there’s a right “to be left alone”. You’re suggesting that this right doesn’t exist, if someone somewhere isn’t left alone? You’re not talking about ‘rights’, then…

You could wave a sign with the words: “I have a right to life” and show it to an attacking lion… and see if it says… “oh well, then I will have to find someone else to eat for dinner”.

No; that would remain a right – it just would have not been protected in that case.

Did you expect anything else on a discussion board? We have tons of thought experiments, this is just one more.

Do you mean “did I expect consistency from you?” Yeah, kinda. My mistake.

Nope, because it is the direct result of the negative golden rule. If someone does not want to be defeated, then he should not attack first. The defense of: “the whole war started when he hit me back”… might work with kids, but not with rational adults.

That’s not what’s in play, though: you’re talking about the right of self-defense. That’s not implied by the “negative golden rule” (whatever that is, but I’m assuming you mean “do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you”). After all, as you yourself have said “your right to your fist ends at my nose.” Self-defense contradicts that rule; it’s still my fist and your nose, even if you breached my nose-space first.

So, we’re back to my assertion: your attempt at a system of morality isn’t a clear-cut as you’d like to make it out to be; it requires additional statements of morality, even as you claim it only needs one.

 

[inocente]

Ethical propositions:

1. Do not do unto others, that you would not want others do unto you. (Negative version of the golden rule)
2. Do unto others that you would want others do unto you. (Positive version of the golden rule)

These ethical propositions (guidelines) come closest to being universal. Being almost universal does not mean that everyone, under any and all circumstances will accept them. Lunatics will not accept anything. But their opinion can be safely tossed aside.

Lane Craig claims that if there are objective moral facts, they must come from outside humans, since otherwise they’re just our opinions. And, he then claims, God is the only logically possible transcendent source for such facts.

You seem to be claiming that your propositions are moral facts, since you suggest that anyone who disagrees with them may be mentally ill (in need of reeducation in an institution, as per the old Soviet Union? )

If they’re facts, on what basis? If they’re not facts, how can opinions be a foundation for a universal morality?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Let me repeat my advice about never becoming a parent.

Your advice missed the mark by almost 42 years.

It is true, people seek out pleasures and avoid pains. So it is “good” inasmuch as it is wanted (fine), but there are all kinds of pleasures that our intuition would call “bad” and all kinds of pains that our intuition would call “good” when removed from the situation.

Intuition is wonderful, but it is not a substitute for analysis. Examples would have been welcome, because I have no idea what you have in mind. Though I would never wish to decouple the acts from the situation. In my world there are no intrinsically evil actions. Everything is situational.

And once again, this does not explain why we “must” act a certain way… The only true motivation for “must” is happiness, since it is the universal human good we all seek. Back to that Aristotle guy you bashed.

Happiness is such a generic concept. Biologically useful or detrimental are objective. Aiming for biological “good” does not require a “why”.

This is a sophistical thread. It is repetitive of recently failed threads, starts with similar bad grounds (viz. not beginning with a discussion about happiness), and uses very long and sloppy arguments that aren’t worth the time to deconstruct.

If the only thing you care to say is impolite and disparaging remarks, then I will be grateful not to hear from you ever again.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Lane Craig claims that if there are objective moral facts, they must come from outside humans, since otherwise they’re just our opinions. And, he then claims, God is the only logically possible transcendent source for such facts.

I disagree with Craig (except with the craigslist.com )

You seem to be claiming that your propositions are moral facts, since you suggest that anyone who disagrees with them may be mentally ill (in need of reeducation in an institution, as per the old Soviet Union? )

If they’re facts, on what basis? If they’re not facts, how can opinions be a foundation for a universal morality?

I am sorry, but the expression “moral fact” is meaningless for me.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Biologically useful or detrimental are objective. Aiming for biological “good” does not require a “why”. . . .

The usefulness of an organ or of a behaviour answers the question why.
For example, “Why do we have a heart?”, or perhaps “Why do cats meow?”.
I would assume a beating heart and a cat making its needs known are biological “goods”.
You seem to be contradicting yourself, but if it makes you happy that would explain it.

 

[XndrK]

My annotated version of the first post. My text is in blue.

It is quite simple.

Facts:

1. We are biological beings. K. Fits in an atheistic framework.
2. We try to avoid pain and suffering. Okay, but what exactly do we mean by “pain and suffering”? And what about masochists?
3. Together we can achieve more than separately. Most of the time. Sometimes taking advantage of another person achieves an avoidance of pain and suffering, if we mean in the biological sense (which I am adopting).

Ethical propositions: Wait, ethics? I’m not getting ethical propositions so much as efficiency guidelines.

1. Do not do unto others, that you would not want others do unto you. (Negative version of the golden rule)
2. Do unto others that you would want others do unto you. (Positive version of the golden rule)
   Is this the equivalent to “work together to avoid pain and suffering”? And again, what if breaking these rules advances my position in life? Frank Underwood appears to be breaking these rules and he’s doing rather well.

These ethical propositions (guidelines) come closest to being universal. Being almost universal does not mean that everyone, under any and all circumstances will accept them. Lunatics will not accept anything. But their opinion can be safely tossed aside. Why? What makes your opinion better than theirs? As far as they are concerned, we are the lunatics.

Other considerations:

The optimal human behavior will be a certain level of cooperation to allow minimizing the pain and suffering and raise the level of well-being. In other words: “live and let live”. Sometimes competition is better than cooperation. Competition brings the world forward. Where to draw the line between cooperation and competition is a practical question, which can be only decided by examining the actual circumstances. In other words, you’re just going to have to go with your gut on these, and relativist ethics has returned.

Summary in a few words:

1. Respect others. Define “respect”.
2. Help them when they ask for help. Even if doing so would cause you suffering?
3. If they explicitly decline your help, respect their wish.
4. If they not in the position to ask or decline your help, use your best judgment using the golden rule. Define “not in the position”.

That is all. No mention of any deity, a practical guideline to lead a “moral” life. And a commentary on said practical guideline.

Okay, now to talk without bluetexting: I still firmly believe that the closest anyone has come to an atheist view of morality is Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, which comes with its own host of problems (e.g, the book explicating it is called The Virtue of Selfishness). If the discussion wants to go that way, go on ahead.

 

[BobCatholic]

1. Do not do unto others, that you would not want others do unto you. (Negative version of the golden rule)
2. Do unto others that you would want others do unto you. (Positive version of the golden rule)

The problem with using the Golden Rule as a base (then creating a negative and a copy), is that the Golden Rule came from Jesus Christ who is God. So this cannot be a non-theistic foundation of morality.

Can’t take something from God and not give him credit for this.

Reminds me of the joke:

God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to
Him, “Lord, we don’t need you anymore. Science has finally
figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other
words, we can now do what you did in the beginning.”
“Oh, is that so? Tell me…” replies God.
“Well,” says the scientist, “we can take dirt and
form it into the likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus
creating man.”
“Well, that’s interesting. Show me.”
So the scientist bends down to the earth and
starts to mold the soil.
“Oh no, no, no…” interrupts God, “Get your own dirt.”

So, when it comes to a non-theistic foundation of morality, “get your own dirt”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The problem with using the Golden Rule as a base (then creating a negative and a copy), is that the Golden Rule came from Jesus Christ who is God. So this cannot be a non-theistic foundation of morality.

Some think otherwise.
Wikipedia.org:

Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess, Ma’at, who appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040 – c. 1650 BC): “Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do.”[10][11] This proverb embodies the do ut des principle.[12] A Late Period (c. 664 BC – 323 BC) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: “That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.”

There are other early sources too.

 

[BobCatholic]

Some think otherwise.

You did notice the context?

“Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess”

You’re citing another deity’s teaching. (of course, a false deity, but still you’re citing a theistic foundation of morality)

Again, please use your own soil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You did notice the context?

I did. You had said:

The problem with using the Golden Rule as a base (then creating a negative and a copy), is that the Golden Rule came from Jesus Christ who is God.

(bolding my own).
I’m only pointing out it can be argued that the rule has an origin other than Jesus.

Side note: you probably won’t get a reply from the threads originator given his/her current status.

 

[BobCatholic]

I did. You had said:
(bolding my own).
I’m only pointing out it can be argued that the rule has an origin other than Jesus.

Side note: you probably won’t get a reply from the threads originator given his/her current status.

I agree with your point that others have gotten this message as well. I know God works through non-Catholics and puts his wisdom to them. I see, for example, Buddhism’s belief that we should not be self-centered (and that’s definitely God’s wisdom there). The examples are endless.

My point is that your example not a non-theistic foundation of morality, since it involves a (false) goddess’s teachings.

Also, you’re right about the OP. I don’t expect an answer from the OP.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

My point is that your example not a non-theistic foundation of morality

Acknowledged, though my intention was not to present something non-theistic.

 

[PRmerger]

Lane Craig claims that if there are objective moral facts, they must come from outside humans, since otherwise they’re just our opinions. And, he then claims, God is the only logically possible transcendent source for such facts.

You seem to be claiming that your propositions are moral facts, since you suggest that anyone who disagrees with them may be mentally ill (in need of reeducation in an institution, as per the old Soviet Union? )

If they’re facts, on what basis? If they’re not facts, how can opinions be a foundation for a universal morality?

Indeed.

Any atheist who claims to be a moral relativist but also tries to argue that his position is correct is, amusingly, offering proof of his being actually a moral absolutist.

 

[Bradski]

Indeed.

Any atheist who claims to be a moral relativist but also tries to argue that his position is correct is, amusingly, offering proof of his being actually a moral absolutist.

As to the question in the other almost identical thread as to my attitude if the person was my son…

You are just asking the same question. What difference would my relationship to the person make? Just assume the guy killing his daughter IS my son. Then reread what I wrote.

 

[PRmerger]

As to the question in the other almost identical thread as to my attitude if the person was my son…

You are just asking the same question. What difference would my relationship to the person make? Just assume the guy killing his daughter IS my son. Then reread what I wrote.

So it would be moral for your son to kill his daughter in an “honor killing”, if that’s what he discerned to be moral?