- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by shahenshahReligion gives such a boost to morality it is hard to envision a people failing to enshrine their morality in whatever religion they have. But I think it is mistake to think that moral standards were originated by philosophers, unless you consider a group of hunter/gatherers discovering rules on how to get along, and the ways that emotions can induce compliance, to be philosophers. I suspect it came in this order: morality -- religion -- leisure --beer -- philosophy.
Agreed with your logic.
However see your line excerpted below...
"I don't think we can say that morality, as such, is a unique property of religion."
Just for your info, please see an interesting defintion of morals/ethics given by Mr Avalanchethecat.
So if morality is not a unique property of religion, then can you show just 1 moral /ethical standard that came / originated out of contemporary atheist philosophers?
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by shahenshahWhat I'm saying is that correct moral and ethical behaviour is discernible by any human being, regardless of their religious background, given sufficient wisdom and consideration.
Let me see if I understand what you are saying....
that is morals /ethics just existed long before religions came into being. And now religions have formed themselves around these basic values?
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatNeat side-step.
What I'm saying is that correct moral and ethical behaviour is discernible by any human being, regardless of their religious background, given sufficient wisdom and consideration.
But coming to the point which came first the morals or the religion.
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by shahenshahIt is not a side-step. I have stated that it is my belief that it is in the nature of man to discern and develop ethically and morally correct behaviour, given sufficient wisdom and consideration. Is it not clear then that I believe that morals pre-date any religion? In fact, I think it likely that it is from the realisation of the value of ethically and morally correct behaviour that most religions spring.
Neat side-step.
But coming to the point which came first the morals or the religion.
30 Jul 11
So, Freaky, you seem to be claiming that atheists are committed, by virtue of their atheism, to a certain explanatory program with regard to morality. Moreover, this explanatory program must end with facts that are physical or material; facts like those we find in physics, chemistry, etc. If so, you are essentially challenging the atheist to present an argument that takes as its premises solely descriptively specifiable facts (i.e., facts that can be expressed without the use of normative or evaluative terminology), and that concludes with facts about what is right, good, appropriate, virtuous or whatever. Is this right? And, further, you're claiming that if the atheist cannot provide such an argument (in effect, if the atheist must take as a premise in the explanatory program some normative or evaluative claim), that the resultant account of morality must be, at the end of the day, nothing more than personal preference or subjective opinion. Is this a fair characterization?
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by bbarrNot being Freaky, I'll just opine that I think that's the gist of it. Amoral physical principles and processes, whether deterministic or stochastic, are to be fed into a mathematical (or at least logical) algorithm that will proceed, in a finite time span, to construct an objective, absolute and universal code of morality.
So, Freaky, you seem to be claiming that atheists are committed, by virtue of their atheism, to a certain explanatory program with regard to morality. Moreover, this explanatory program must end with facts that are physical or material; facts like those we find in physics, chemistry, etc. If so, you are essentially challenging the atheist to present an argum ...[text shortened]... nothing more than personal preference or subjective opinion. Is this a fair characterization?
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastOK, but I am unsure that your paraphrase is a fair characterization. Is Freaky committed to the claim that it is an entailment of atheism that the moral domain can be reduced to the material domain in a way that would qualify as algorithmic? In any case, I doubt Freaky simply wants an explanation of how moral beliefs could arise in creatures like us. He wants an explanation of 1) how any such beliefs could be true (i.e., what facts make them true), and 2) if so, why we should care about their being true in a way that motivates us accordingly. He wants the atheist to provide a meta-ethical account that both renders morality an objective affair and that explains why morality is authoritative; why we can truly be obligated, or the proper subjects of 'ought' and 'should' claims. At least, I think that's what he wants. He'll have to correct me here if I'm wrong.
Not being Freaky, I'll just opine that I think that's the gist of it. Amoral physical principles and processes, whether deterministic or stochastic, are to be fed into a mathematical (or at least logical) algorithm that will proceed, in a finite time span, to construct an objective, absolute and universal code of morality.
30 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrYou're right, I'm largely addressing only the second of Freaky's three primary questions at the outset of the thread:
OK, but I am unsure that your paraphrase is a fair characterization.
How did matter, energy, time and chance result in a set of objective moral values? Did the Big Bang really spew forth “love your enemy?”
If this second question can actually be answered, then the other two become superfluous.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by bbarrAlso not being freaky, I would modify "personal preference or subjective opinion" to "societal preference or intersubjective agreements." The range of the individual's freedom to form his personal preferences and subjective opinions will be conditioned to a large degree by the society he is in, and his actions will be curtailed for him if the conditioning is not effective. IOW even for the atheist, no man is an island.
So, Freaky, you seem to be claiming that atheists are committed, by virtue of their atheism, to a certain explanatory program with regard to morality. Moreover, this explanatory program must end with facts that are physical or material; facts like those we find in physics, chemistry, etc. If so, you are essentially challenging the atheist to present an argum ...[text shortened]... nothing more than personal preference or subjective opinion. Is this a fair characterization?