Sade vs Rand: thoughts on atheism and morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter StudentMI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Freddy said:
Nobody said that there weren’t alternatives. But surely a teaching by Jesus comes high on any list of any of the methods to determine a moral viewpoint. So surely you must accept it as being an entirely valid proposal. And I still can’t get over the fact that I am trying to convince a Catholic of the benefits of listening to, and accepting, that which Jesus taught us…
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about that just the reasoning to accept it and you haven’t offered any.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
There are many societies that didn’t practice or recognize the golden rule.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how you might know this, but it doesn’t answer my question. The question is very simple—how does one, ever, realize the truth of any given moral principle?

How do you know that you should never treat another person as only a means to your end? Most everyone would grant this as true. How and why would they do so?

Peter Singer (an atheist) once argued in a famous article in the 1970’s for the following moral principle: “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it,” (“famine, affluence and morality”). Again, most everyone would grant the moral principle as true. How and why would they do so?
 
StudentMI said:
I think I might have the answer to the debate between Freddy and Vanitas. And I hate to say it, but I’m going to appeal to Rand.

Existence exists. You can both agree on that. And as individual actors you both have certain needs and desires. Relying solely on self interest, you could each set up a contract between yourselves that would stipulate no violence will be done by one upon the other.

Even if not morality that’s certainly an ethical system.
Click to expand...
If you haven’t read any evolutionary psychology, you are heading down a path that’s been created by those who propose it.
 
Interesting. I’ll have to read more on that. Is the Wilson book we talked about along those lines?
 
Magnanimity said:
I’m not sure how you might know this, but it doesn’t answer my question. The question is very simple—how does one, ever, realize the truth of any given moral principle?

How do you know that you should never treat another person as only a means to your end? Most everyone would grant this as true. How and why would they do so?
Click to expand...
They just recognized it? That doesn’t make much sense intellectually and with contrary experiences involved it would seem that the basis isn’t enough to distinguish it from others.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
40.png
Freddy:
Nobody said that there weren’t alternatives. But surely a teaching by Jesus comes high on any list of any of the methods to determine a moral viewpoint. So surely you must accept it as being an entirely valid proposal. And I still can’t get over the fact that I am trying to convince a Catholic of the benefits of listening to, and accepting, that which Jesus taught us…
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about that just the reasoning to accept it and you haven’t offered any.
Click to expand...
Wha…? Jesus, also know as the Son of God, told us we should accept it. If that’s not good enough for you then I’m at a loss as to how to continue.

Are there any other of Jesus’s teachings you reject because I personally haven’t offered ang reason for you to accept them?

This is becoming surreal.
 
Freddy said:
Wha…? Jesus, also know as the Son of God, told us we should accept it. If that’s not good enough for you then I’m at a loss as to how to continue.

Are there any other of Jesus’s teachings you reject because I personally haven’t offered ang reason for you to accept them?

This is becoming surreal.
Click to expand...
You mean the Bible says, if that’s what it rests on that has other implications that are not consistent with what most people do or believe.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
They just recognized it?
Click to expand...
Certainly! In an analogous way to how we recognize beauty in the world. We don’t have to be taught what is beautiful—we recognize it when it compels us to behold it.

I don’t accept that version of Kant’s categorical imperative bc he reasoned me into a corner and I grudgingly felt I must accept it. I know it’s true bc I have a properly-functioning conscience formed by enough human experience in the world. Perhaps as a child I tried to use a peer as only a means to an end and the world slapped my wrist in the process. And I come to intuit, “oh, I guess I can’t behave that way…”

And again, you aren’t answering the straightforward question—how does anyone, ever, come to understand that given moral principle is true?
 
Magnanimity said:
Certainly! In an analogous way to how we recognize beauty in the world. We don’t have to be taught what is beautiful—we recognize it when it compels us to behold it.
Click to expand...
People don’t agree on what’s beautiful and what is not, so that type of thing is inconsistent.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
40.png
Freddy:
Wha…? Jesus, also know as the Son of God, told us we should accept it. If that’s not good enough for you then I’m at a loss as to how to continue.

Are there any other of Jesus’s teachings you reject because I personally haven’t offered ang reason for you to accept them?

This is becoming surreal.
Click to expand...
You mean the Bible says, if that’s what it rests on that has other implications that are not consistent with what most people do or believe.
Click to expand...
OK, back to basics, I guess.

Do you believe that Jesus taught us that we should treat others as we would wish to be treated? Matthew 7:12. Aka the golden rule.
 
You know it’s interesting you say that. I believe people have an almost natural appreciation for what we call beauty. I’m sure there’s a whole literature on it but I’m not familiar with it off hand. But everyone recognizes beauty, and awe inspiring sights.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
People don’t agree on what’s beautiful and what is not, so that type of thing is inconsistent.
Click to expand...
Still not able to answer the question, huh?

So what? You’re advocating an “accident” theory like @Hume did above regarding the success of Christianity? So, it’s just accidental that Victoria’s Secret models have shared the same body type for years and years? The widespread love of Beethoven and Mozart’s music for centuries has been accidental? That St Peter’s Basilica will shock and awe all of us with its beauty and grandeur—just an accident, right? Many people would think it’s ordinary if not ugly? Like many guys think Tom Brady’s wife Giselle is ugly too…right? It’s all in the eye of the beholder, is it…?
 
Freddy said:
OK, back to basics, I guess.

Do you believe that Jesus taught us that we should treat others as we would wish to be treated? Matthew 7:12. Aka the golden rule.
Click to expand...
That works in a Christian setting not a non-Christian one and I’m talking within the realms of the latter for debate purposes.
 
I’ve had trouble getting to sleep this evening, so thanks to all for some rousing engagement. Better try to get some shuteye in earnest now. Talk later.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
40.png
Freddy:
OK, back to basics, I guess.

Do you believe that Jesus taught us that we should treat others as we would wish to be treated? Matthew 7:12. Aka the golden rule.
Click to expand...
That works in a Christian setting not a non-Christian one and I’m talking within the realms of the latter for debate purposes.
Click to expand...
So it would be something that you’d accept as being a valid method to use to make moral decisions. Gee, that took quite a few posts I must say…

Now we’ve got that agreed, let’s say that there’s a moral problem and you determine your response using the golden rule. And that someone else uses the same teaching and reaches the same answer. Now, whether you or the other guy has to conform to that decision is a matter entirely separate from the validity of using the method used to reach said decision.

So following what Jesus taught us you two can reach an agreement on what we should do. Can we agree on that?
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
Some things are objectively true (there’s a cup of tea on the table in front of me). Morality isn’t.

In your opinion, is what the church teaches correct?
Click to expand...
I made no claim that morality was objectively true. My point was that if it wasn’t then there is no real sense in which it can be said to exist as anything more than personal preference.
Freddy said:
Why would you think that the outcomes of a pathology are equivalent?
Click to expand...
I didn’t suggest they were. We’re discussing morality, not outcomes.
If you want to be a morally good person then obey the golden rule and develop your empathy.
Click to expand...
This argument is irrelevant to an atheist, as are all arguments from religion. The argument I’m making is that if the atheist is right that God does not exist then he is wrong in believing that morality does. It is only if he is wrong about the existence of God that he can be right that there is such a thing as morality.
 
Ender said:
" If you want to be a morally good person then obey the golden rule and develop your empathy."

This argument is irrelevant to an atheist, as are all arguments from religion.
Click to expand...
But it isn’t a religious argument. Jesus recommended that we follow it, but it’s not restricted to Christians or valid only to Christians. It’s pretty much a universal maxim. Why would it not be applicable to everyone?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top