What Moral Right Does An Atheist Have?

[MindOverMatter2]

You are free to do any old thing with your life for better or worse.

Yes, i know that.

It is the human being, herself or himself, who is worthy of profound respect.

Why?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Then people will need to understand how subjective and objective work.

How do you think objectivity and subjectivity works?

 

[tonyrey]

Why is the fact of my being a human being a reason for thinking that my life is worthy of profound respect?

Why are they immensely valuable?
For the same reason!

Life is a source of possibilities. Thomas Nagel is irrational, since his statement implies that there is something objectively positive about reality, that life is an objective opportunity that we ought to embrace. This cannot be objectively true if his atheism reflects the truth. Thats just humanistic mysticism; another form of denial in a nihilistic reality.

I agree but his statement is true if it is prescinded from his atheism.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Sair]

Because you have the power of reason which enables you to decide that life is not worthy of profound respect!

I suspect that most humans don’t ‘decide’ that life is worthy of profound respect - certainly not when it comes to nonhuman life. Most humans, like most animals, act expediently in their own interest. Morality serves the interest of most humans, in terms of the social contract that we enact with each other.

I agree but his statement is true if it is prescinded from his atheism.

So human life is not, in and of itself, valuable, but only so if it has divine sanction?

 

[tonyrey]

I suspect that most humans don’t ‘decide’ that life is worthy of profound respect - certainly not when it comes to nonhuman life.

They assume that their life is worthy of respect judging by their indignation when they are treated disrespectfully.

Most humans, like most animals, act expediently in their own interest.

It doesn’t follow that they are acting immorally.

Morality serves the interest of most humans, in terms of the social contract that we enact with each other.

That is a hypothesis that needs justification.

So human life is not, in and of itself, valuable, but only so if it has divine sanction?

Don’t you believe all values are subjective?

 

[grannymh]

I suspect that most humans don’t ‘decide’ that life is worthy of profound respect - certainly not when it comes to nonhuman life. Most humans, like most animals, act expediently in their own interest. Morality serves the interest of most humans, in terms of the social contract that we enact with each other.

So human life is not, in and of itself, valuable, but only so if it has divine sanction?

Another human being exists outside my mind. This is objective existence.
My feelings about another human being come from inside my mind. This is subjective reasoning.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Don’t you believe all values are subjective?

Many meanings of the word value are centered around something being desirable, useful, or assigned with by someone. Are there objects that have a value even in the complete absence of a mind to appreciate them?

Sent from my Windows Phone. Pardon my mistakes.

 

[grannymh]

Another human being exists outside my mind. This is objective existence.
My feelings about another human being come from inside my mind. This is subjective reasoning.

The best way to understand the difference between objective and subjective is to use a dictionary, Wikipedia, or Google.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ThinkingSapien

Are there objects that have a value even in the complete absence of a mind to appreciate them?

Yes. A plant values the sun by growing toward it.

 

[tonyrey]

Many meanings of the word value are centered around something being desirable, useful, or assigned with by someone. Are there objects that have a value even in the complete absence of a mind to appreciate them?

Were animals completely valueless before humanity existed?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Were animals completely valueless before humanity existed?

If metaphysical-naturalism is correct then the answer is affirmative, for there is no such thing as a value which transcends the subjective desires of a self-conscious intelligent being, regardless of whether or not they exist or what form they take. What real distinction exists between an animal and a human?

 

[tonyrey]

If metaphysical-naturalism is correct then the answer is affirmative, for there is no such thing as a value which transcends the subjective desires of a self-conscious intelligent being, regardless of whether or not they exist or what form they take. What real distinction exists between an animal and a human?

Only their natural characteristics…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Only their natural characteristics…

We are sentient animals. We are self-ware and have emotions. In terms of characteristics that was the only distinction. However, studies on dolphins are bringing that distinction in to dispute. In any case, i was talking about value distinctions, and not our physical characteristics.

 

[tonyrey]

We are sentient animals. We are self-ware and have emotions. In terms of characteristics that was the only distinction. However, studies on dolphins are bringing that distinction in to dispute. In any case, i was talking about value distinctions, and not our physical characteristics.

From the naturalist’s POV?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

From the naturalist’s POV?

From the naturalist POV our lives have no more meaning or value than cow dung.

Does that upset you, to think that might be true?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Were animals completely valueless before humanity existed?

Since many (though not all) animals have a mind I’d say it’s possible that those animals found value in some things (safety, food, each other…). But even that value is dependent on the presence of minds. In this case the minds of the animals. It isn’t value independent of minds.

To word it another way is there value without a valuer?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**To word it another way is there value without a valuer? **

Yes, the plant values the sun by being drawn toward it.

How do you define a valuer other than one thing being drawn toward another? Is mental consciousness a requirement? Then how was inanimate matter drawn toward animated matter? Natural selection, according to Darwin. Then nature (inanimate matter) was drawn toward life (selected life) because it valued life. Even Darwin could not avoid language that smacked of valuation.

In that case the whole universe has value because everything in it is drawn toward something else.

The atheist would say there is no one to mentally value the universe in its entirety.

But that would be God. If everything is drawn toward something else, why is it unreasonable to leap to the conclusion that the universe as a whole is drawn toward God as its valuer, its First Cause and its Final End?

If valuing exists in a mindless universe (before any life forms existed anywhere in the universe) how was it that a mindless universe “selected” (was drawn toward) mind (self-consciousness) as a future state of being?

And why should this self-conscious mind begin to mediate very profoundly about a Mind decidedly greater than its own, unless it was Created by that Mind to be drawn toward an encounter with Itself?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

**To word it another way is there value without a valuer? **

Yes, the plant values the sun by being drawn toward it.

I’m having a hard time seeing phototropism as expression of value without further explanation.

How do you define a valuer other than one thing being drawn toward another? Is mental consciousness a requirement?

“Drawn towards” in the context in which you have presented it is descriptive of matter being moved closer through the influence of force(s). I don’t think this is an agreed upon understanding for the word “value” in modern times. Does some one that falls off of a cliff value the rocks towards which they are drawn? Is that why the person moves towards them?

If you can explain value without a valuer than a mind would not be a requirement. But the meanings of the word “value” with which I am familiar all imply a mind.

Then how was inanimate matter drawn toward animated matter? Natural selection, according to Darwin. Then nature (inanimate matter) was drawn toward life (selected life) because it valued life. Even Darwin could not avoid language that smacked of valuation.

It sounds like an example of a common style of metaphor, anthropomorphilization, used for didactic purposes. Metaphors are often used as scaffolding upon which further understanding is built after which the scaffolding can be discarded.

If valuing exists in a mindless universe

Once again valuing (aka evaluation) implies an action on the part of something unless it can be explained how valuing can occur without a valuer.

how was it that a mindless universe “selected”

Does a discussion of the origins of the universe contribute towards explaining value without a valuer?

 

[tonyrey]

Since many (though not all) animals have a mind I’d say it’s possible that those animals found value in some things (safety, food, each other…).

Whether they found value is irrelevant. Did their lives have any value at all - regardless of your opinion?

But even that value is dependent on the presence of minds. In this case the minds of the animals. It isn’t value independent of minds

So values are entirely fictitious?

To word it another way is there value without a valuer?

Does a fact cease to exist if no one is aware of it?

 

[tonyrey]

From the naturalist POV our lives have no more meaning or value than cow dung.

Does that upset you, to think that might be true?

Having been aware of it for many years I regard it as nonsense! It is logically possible but absurd nevertheless…