How can it be the same?

Originally posted by bbarr
No, it doesn't. Read G.E. Moore's Principia Ethica. Anyway, 'naturalism' is commonly construed as merely a commitment to a) an ontology that exludes non-natural elements, and b) a view of epistemic justification that largely denies any substantial or necessary role to the a priori. So, naturalism is commonly construed as a combination of both a metap ...[text shortened]... as there may be natural, non-physical properties (e.g. normative properties of reasons).

True. Atheism is an attempt to define reality by what it is not (non-theism) -- leaving open a world of possibilities.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think Atheists are committed to the view that if something has a property then it is at least hypothetically verifiable. I'm afraid you are blurring the distinction between reality and subjectivity. If you are saying beauty , love etc are actual things then say it and say more about what you think they are, if you are saying that they are subjective ...[text shortened]... moral truth and value that come with a Theistic view but just take the God bit out please)

What the hell does moral relativism have to do with atheism? What the hell does existentialism have to do with either moral relativism or atheism. There are atheists that are moral realists (witness the vast majority of contemporary philosophers). There are theists that are existentialists (witness Kierkegaard). There are existentialists that are not moral relativists (witness Levinas).

Originally posted by bbarr
What the hell does moral relativism have to do with atheism? What the hell does existentialism have to do with either moral relativism or atheism. There are atheists that are moral realists (witness the vast majority of contemporary philosophers). There are theists that are existentialists (witness Kierkegaard). There are existentialists that are not moral relativists (witness Levinas).

What the hell does moral relativism have to do with atheism?
I'd say it comes down to the standard of measure. The so-called atheist has no standard by which to determine morality, other than self.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The word 'Love' has many different meanings. According to C.S. Lewis (a well respected Christian), love can be categorised into four different types. He wrote a really good book on them called the four loves. Buy it and read it.

I dont think that any two people talking about love or meaning have exactly the same understanding of them and for you to cla ...[text shortened]... ur definition of love so I suggest you consider making up a new word so as to avoid confusion.

I suppose I took it as read that I was talking about agape love (is that the right phrase?). I have read parts CS lewis's Four loves and I agree with the point you are making.

I'm glad you take love and meaning seriously and I'm not surprised that there are Christians around you who don't behave as well as you. I'm guessing that you know the wrong sort of Christians (if you are from America and have bumped into some self righteous fundies then can I apologise on behalf of the rest of us that you have had this misfortune).

If you say that your understanding of love is more valid then I presume you believe there is a standardised benchmark of love by which understanding of love can be measured. But that would require love (or the law of love) to exist in some way rather than be mere opinion or feeling. You would hardly say to someone "my understanding of the beauty of this painting is more valid than yours" and expect them to say anything other than "fine you are entitled to your opinion , but by what standard are you judging my understanding, beauty is in the eye of the beholder!"

What do you base your understanding of love and meaning on? Love to me is doing the hard stuff, loving people when you don't want to , choosing to see past someone's ugly bits to the precious gem inside. Not judging but accepting unconditionally , standing alongside people when they are hurting the most (and feeling it with them)..also valuing the little things and following compassion ahead of revenge and power and anger , feeling passionate about the injustice of powerful nations bullying the impoverished , etc etc ...this is tough love , frightening love , it might make you sacrifice your life (but it will never make you kill)...and I rarely live up to it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]What the hell does moral relativism have to do with atheism?
I'd say it comes down to the standard of measure. The so-called atheist has no standard by which to determine morality, other than self.[/b]

False; an atheist could determine morality from any authority which does not include a god. For example, an atheist could decide that any action is morally allowed unless the government outlaws it. This decision is no more derived from the self than the theist's decision to base hir morality on the word of a god.

Originally posted by royalchicken
False; an atheist could determine morality from any authority which does not include a god. For example, an atheist could decide that any action is morally allowed unless the government outlaws it. This decision is no more derived from the self than the theist's decision to base hir morality on the word of a god.

That's right. An atheist could even adopt the moral standards given in the Bible.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
That's right. An atheist could even adopt the moral standards given in the Bible.

Actually the moral standards in the Bible aren't bad, considering that they are entirely arbitrary (judging by what the Christians here seem to be saying).

Originally posted by bbarr
This is the point that commonly confuses theists, who want to say that atheism commits one to physicalism. They are wrong on this point, as there may be natural, non-physical properties (e.g. normative properties of reasons).

It seems you are incorrectly excluding 'normative properties of reasons' from physicalism. Physicalists do not deny that logic or language exist.

Or have I misunderstood what you mean by 'normative properties of reasons'?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]What the hell does moral relativism have to do with atheism?
I'd say it comes down to the standard of measure. The so-called atheist has no standard by which to determine morality, other than self.[/b]

No, that is false. Just as the theist postulates a God and then derives moral claims from what he takes to be God's will, so the atheist postulates conditions on a flourishing human life, or categorical norms of practical reason, or intrinsically valuable states of affairs, or a priori accessible moral truths, or hypothetical negotiations between ideally rational agents, or...., and then derives moral claims. None of these views (virtue theory, Kantian deontology, utilitarianism, intuitionism, contractarianism [or contractualism], respectively) are relativistic.

Originally posted by dottewell
Actually the moral standards in the Bible aren't bad, considering that they are entirely arbitrary (judging by what the Christians here seem to be saying).

The Golden Rule is too egoistic to serve as an adequate primary moral principle. It shouldn't read "love your neighbor as yourself...", but rather "love your neighbor". In loving relationships you don't take as a starting point in deliberations about how you ought to treat the beloved considerations about how you would want to be treated. Rather, you start with considerations about how the beloved wants to be treated.

Originally posted by Palynka
It seems you are incorrectly excluding 'normative properties of reasons' from physicalism. Physicalists do not deny that logic or language exist.

Or have I misunderstood what you mean by 'normative properties of reasons'?

I didn't claim that physicalists deny that logic or language exist, I claimed that there exist natural, non-physical normative properties. If you are a reductive physicalist, then normative properties will be excluded from your ontology (since the required reduction will fail). If you are a minimal physicalist, committed merely to some supervenience relation holding between the normative and its physical subvenient base, then O.K., no problem. But if you look at the remarks of theists regarding love, for instance, you'll see that they do not construe physicalism in this sophisticated way. Rather, they take physicalism to be something like type-physicalism (e.g., love is identical to some pattern of neural activity).

Originally posted by bbarr
I didn't claim that physicalists deny that logic or language exist, I claimed that there exist natural, non-physical normative properties. If you are a reductive physicalist, then normative properties will be excluded from your ontology (since the required reduction will fail). If you are a minimal physicalist, committed merely to some supervenience relation ...[text shortened]... something like type-physicalism (e.g., love is identical to some pattern of neural activity).

I'm not contradicting you with all these questions, I'm trying to learn.

How would a reductive physicalist reduce language?
Is what we call logic in any way different than a language?
Wouldn't a physicalist (not necessarily reductive) also defend your example of love being identical to some pattern of neural activity?

Originally posted by bbarr
The Golden Rule is too egoistic to serve as an adequate primary moral principle. It shouldn't read "love your neighbor as yourself...", but rather "love your neighbor". In loving relationships you don't take as a starting point in deliberations about how you ought to treat the beloved considerations about how you would want to be treated. Rather, you start with considerations about how the beloved wants to be treated.

Based on your formulation, it sounds like "love your neighbor" is equally egoistic, as it gives primary consideration to your neighbor's ego as "love you neighbor as yourself" gives primary consideration to your own ego.

Can you provide an example of a situation in which the latter is inadequate while the former is adequate?

Are you morally inclined to give a person you love a hundred dollars if the way he wants to be treated is to be given a hundred dollars?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Based on your formulation, is sounds like "love your neighbor" is equally egoistic, as it gives primary consideration to your neighbor's ego as "love you neighbor as yourself" gives primary consideration to your own ego.

Can you provide an example of a situation in which the latter is inadequate while the former is adequate?

Are you morally inc ...[text shortened]... love a hundred dollars if the way he wants to be treated is to be given a hundred dollars?

"Egoistic" is a technical term meaning something like "taking one's own interests as of fundamental moral importance".

Can't you? It's not difficult.

There is too little information to determine what my inclinations would be. I don't engage in moral deliberations informed merely by one principle.

Originally posted by bbarr


Can't you? It's not difficult.

I can, but for each such example, I can formulate an analogous one for which your alternate criterion is inadequate.