Sade vs Rand: thoughts on atheism and morality

[VanitasVanitatum]

That friendship is crucial to human flourishing (Aristotle), that one must always treat others as ends in themselves and never as a means only (Kant) or that courage is a virtue in the mean between two extremes of vice (cowardice and rash foolheartiness) (Aristotle again)…I’m not sure how easy it is to disagree with any of that.

You can live without any of that and there isn’t much of a standard to say otherwise.

 

[Hume]

You won’t regret it.

Fair warning though he tries to hide his atheism somewhat, but it still peeks through. He never liked trying to discuss the idea in a religious context. Felt it was a category error.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It’s a moral system in itself . I guess I’ve reached the point where I have to ask you whether you think ‘Do unto others…’ has any merit at all.

Should we discount it entirely or put it to good use?

I don’t have to say anything since you haven’t really been able to support the moral system in the first place.

 

[Hume]

It had staying power because it evolved so quickly.

There were many 1st century Christians who died without believing in the Trinity or the supremacy of the Petrine seat.

There are still sects like certain Pentecostals that still die today not believing such.

 

[Magnanimity]

You can live without any of that and there isn’t much of a standard to say otherwise.

Your conscience and life experience are the “standards.” You think you can flourish as a human without good friends? Good luck! Have you ever tried to use another person as only a means to some end you had in mind? Wonder how that worked out for you… Not very well, I imagine. There’s no need to try to resist the fact that those who engage in ethical theorizing outside of religious traditions can (and do) arrive at a great many moral truths. Why would there be such a need? Isn’t God the God of ALL? Doesn’t He cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust?

 

[Freddy]

Hume:

One of my favorite books is by EO Wilson called The Social Conquest of the Earth, or something like that. Nearly identical subject.

Some of his ideas didn’t age well, but all in all it’s a fabulous book.

Oh I’m sure some of Kropotkin’s are outdated as well but his is still a good book. I’m adding Wilson’s to my to read list right now.

Too much catching up to do on a few books to read Kropotkin’s piece at the moment. But I downloaded the pdf and checked out his conclusion. Is it that he considers that there’s a balance or perhaps a tension between personal liberty and concern for the ‘collective’ (to use a term he might have used himself)?

I would completely agree with that and go so far as to say it’s that tension that’s allowed society to develop as it has.

 

[StudentMI]

I don’t have to say anything since you haven’t really been able to support the moral system in the first place.

Nonetheless I think we can still acknowledge a basic ethical system that is basic to all humans. After all we believe as Catholics that God has written his law on every heart.

 

[StudentMI]

That’s a fair summary. I haven’t read it for some time. It must be understood in it’s context too as a rebuttal against the social darwinists who if I remember correctly had entirely taken over the field of evolution as proof of liberalism’s tenets. He was trying to show that by nature all humans are social animals and work together to achieve things.

 

[Hume]

StudentMI:

Hume:

One of my favorite books is by EO Wilson called The Social Conquest of the Earth, or something like that. Nearly identical subject.

Some of his ideas didn’t age well, but all in all it’s a fabulous book.

Oh I’m sure some of Kropotkin’s are outdated as well but his is still a good book. I’m adding Wilson’s to my to read list right now.

Too much catching up to do on a few books to read Kropotkin’s piece at the moment. But I downloaded the pdf and checked out his conclusion. Is it that he considers that there’s a balance or perhaps a tension between personal liberty and concern for the ‘collective’ (to use a term he might have used himself)?

I would completely agree with that and go so far as to say it’s that tension that’s allowed society to develop as it has.

Then you, me and @StudentMI should meet at a bar somewhere and put a few down to Friends will be Friends by Queen.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It’s a moral system in itself . I guess I’ve reached the point where I have to ask you whether you think ‘Do unto others…’ has any merit at all.

Should we discount it entirely or put it to good use?

I don’t have to say anything since you haven’t really been able to support the moral system in the first place.

I haven’t been able to support the golden rule? I haven’t made any attempt yet far. I would have thought that pointing out that it was proposed by the Son of God might have lent it some credibility.

Are you suggesting that I need to show what Jesus told us has some validity? Surely not…

 

[Hume]

That’s called a catch-22.

 

[StudentMI]

Then you, me and @StudentMI should meet at a bar somewhere and put a few down to Friends will be Friends by Queen.

It might be because I’ve been up a long time, but I initially read that as us watching Friends in a bar. Which I’m totally down with but it just surprised me.

 

[Magnanimity]

It had staying power because it evolved so quickly.

Not because there’s substantial truth, goodness and beauty within the religion? So, if we throw in all other religions that we could say have had “staying power” (to include, at a minimum, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism), what would you suggest accounts for their success? They’re all just great at “evolving?” Or is it more plausible to believe that all these religions give folks who have a natural transcendental tug an outlet for that tug?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

You think you can flourish as a human without good friends? Good luck! Have you ever tried to use another person as only a means to some end you had in mind? Wonder how that worked out for you… Not very well, I imagine. There’s no need to try to resist the fact that those who engage in ethical theorizing outside of religious traditions can (and do) arrive at a great many moral truths.

All it takes are example of that happening which isn’t hard.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I haven’t made any attempt yet far. I would have thought that pointing out that it was proposed by the Son of God might have lent it some credibility.

Are you suggesting that I need to show what Jesus told us has some validity? Surely not…

That only works if morality is objective, but you don’t believe in that do you?

 

[Hume]

Now I’ll completely agree that humans generally have that “god-shaped hole”. It’s why religion appeared in our species.

The religion doesn’t matter, in itself. So long as you share the common belief in your area so as to meaningfully participate in the society.

I’m still a bit puzzled over whether we’ve fully transcended a need for it or not. Pros and cons both ways.

 

[Freddy]

That’s a fair summary. I haven’t read it for some time. It must be understood in it’s context too as a rebuttal against the social darwinists who if I remember correctly had entirely taken over the field of evolution as proof of liberalism’s tenets. He was trying to show that by nature all humans are social animals and work together to achieve things.

‘Social Darwinism’. A term that should prompt all honest villagers to light the torches and pass around the pitchforks.

 

[Freddy]

Hume:

Then you, me and @StudentMI should meet at a bar somewhere and put a few down to Friends will be Friends by Queen.

It might be because I’ve been up a long time, but I initially read that as us watching Friends in a bar. Which I’m totally down with but it just surprised me.

Two atheists and a Catholic walk into a bar…

 

[StudentMI]

That only works if morality is objective, but you don’t believe in that do you?

I think we can still posit a system of ethics that is more or less rational as far as a godless world goes. Even the individualist anarchists of the 19th century produced one guy, his name escapes me, but he, while fully subscribing to Stirner’s egoism, made the case that a set of ethics was necessary for humans to get along.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I think we can still posit a system of ethics that is more or less rational as far as a godless world goes.

I would accept that if it was based on self-evident truths but the premises aren’t.