6 edits
Originally posted by daniel58I presume my view on this is actually not the same as that as typical/most atheists for I don’t think there is such thing as “moral” and thus I think all “morality”, at least in the sense of it being beliefs in what is “moral”, is a kind of superstition and hence totally irrational.
Well if God doesn't exist then;
1. Morality doesn't exist.
2. There is no point of morality.
The premise for this belief is:
1, There is no non-arbitrary criteria that you can use to determine what is “moral” and what is “immoral”.
2, you cannot logically deduce/judge the probability of any moral hypothesis being true from empirical observation/evidence/data.
I would challenge you to show either 1, or 2, to be false.
I would also challenge you to give an argument that the belief that there is such thing as “moral” is not a superstition.
1, and 2, are both valid regardless there is a ‘God”, (if you say “God” determines “morality” then what non-arbitrary criteria can “God” use to determine what is “moral” and what is “immoral”? -so 1, would still be valid) so whether or not there is a ‘God’ is irrelevant to the issue here for all 'morality' is just superstition anyway.
…2. There is no point of morality.
….
I would think this is true regardless of whether or not there is a “God” -why not dispense with the unnecessary superstition of “morality” and just admit to our selves that we can (and often do) want to do things like be nice to people etc for purely emotional reasons and thus "moral" beliefs are unnecessary for this? -note that emotions don’t require ‘justifying’ (unlike beliefs).
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I presume my view on this is actually not the same as that as typical/most atheists for I don’t think there is such thing as “moral” and thus I think all “morality”, at least in the sense of it being beliefs in what is “moral”, is a kind of superstition and hence totally irrational.
I think many atheists would share some of the premises on which your argument is based. For example, I don't believe you can derive an 'ought' from an 'is' either.
But as an atheist I don't think your conclusion, as you put it, is very helpful.
I think the problem is mainly with premise 1, and with your use of the terms 'superstition' and 'irrational'.
But in order to meet your challenge of showing your argument to be flawed, we might have to disappear down the rabbit hole of meta-ethics for a while, which might be beyond the scope of this thread.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIs murdering wrong? Is stealing wrong? Is lying or cheating wrong? If so that's morality, if not then why not kill yourself?
I presume my view on this is actually not the same as that as typical/most atheists for I don’t think there is such thing as “moral” and thus I think all “morality”, at least in the sense of it being beliefs in what is “moral”, is a kind of superstition and hence totally irrational.
The premise for this belief is:
1, There is no non-arbitrary c ...[text shortened]... s are unnecessary for this? -note that emotions don’t require ‘justifying’ (unlike beliefs).
Originally posted by daniel58…Is murdering wrong? Is stealing wrong? Is lying or cheating wrong?
Is murdering wrong? Is stealing wrong? Is lying or cheating wrong? If so that's morality, if not then why not kill yourself?
...
The answer to all three above is “no“.
The answer to all moral assertions is “no“ including “Is murdering right?” and “Is stealing right?” etc.
Nothing is morally right nor morally wrong.
…If so that's morality,
….
Yes, but it is not so.
…if not then why not kill yourself?
….
What reason would I have to kill myself? -a “moral” reason? 😛
On the other hand, I have a reason to NOT kill myself -it is an emotional reason; I don’t want to die! -no ideas about “morality” are necessary for me to have such an emotion. For similar reasons (i.e. emotional) I do not want to murder nor steal etc thus, again, no ideas about “morality” are necessary here.
To me, “morality” is a redundant concept.
Originally posted by Lord Shark…I don't believe you can derive an 'ought' from an 'is'
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]I presume my view on this is actually not the same as that as typical/most atheists for I don’t think there is such thing as “moral” and thus I think all “morality”, at least in the sense of it being beliefs in what is “moral”, is a kind of superstition and hence totally irrational.
I think many atheist ...[text shortened]... abbit hole of meta-ethics for a while, which might be beyond the scope of this thread.[/b]
...
I think you have hit it on the nail there.
…But as an atheist I don't think your conclusion, as you put it, is very helpful.
….
Does the “helpfulness” of a conclusion have any bearing on whether or not it is the correct conclusion?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonDoes the “helpfulness” of a conclusion have any bearing on whether or not it is the correct conclusion?
[b]…I don't believe you can derive an 'ought' from an 'is'
...
I think you have hit it on the nail there.
…But as an atheist I don't think your conclusion, as you put it, is very helpful.
….
Does the “helpfulness” of a conclusion have any bearing on whether or not it is the correct conclusion?[/b]
No, but I don't think it is correct anyway. But like I said, I suspect that might be a thread in itself. In any case, even though I disagree with this brand of error theory, I have seen it put in a way that I regard as less unhelpful, without the pejorative terms 'irrational' and the misleading term 'superstition'.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIf they are not wrong then tell me do you think anything "wrong" exists then this world is perfect if their is nothing "wrong" with it, if you can't do anything wrong then can you do anything right? Can one thing be more right than another, if I killed you then do you think it's wrong?
[b]…Is murdering wrong? Is stealing wrong? Is lying or cheating wrong?
...
The answer to all three above is “no“.
The answer to all moral assertions is “no“ including “Is murdering right?” and “Is stealing right?” etc.
Nothing is morally right nor morally wrong.
…If so that's morality,
….
Yes, but it is not so.
…if no ...[text shortened]... again, no ideas about “morality” are necessary here.
To me, “morality” is a redundant concept.
6 edits
Originally posted by daniel58…If they are not wrong then tell me do you think anything "wrong" exists
If they are not wrong then tell me do you think anything "wrong" exists then this world is perfect if their is nothing "wrong" with it, if you can't do anything wrong then can you do anything right? Can one thing be more right than another, if I killed you then do you think it's wrong?
….
In the moral sense of the word “wrong” -nothing "wrong" exists.
This mustn’t be confused with any of the other none-‘moral’ meanings of the word “wrong” such as meaning “unpleasant” or “undesirable” or “incorrect” or “unwise” or “imperfect” etc that the word “wrong” may be given in other none ‘moral’ contexts.
…then this world is PERFECT if their is nothing "wrong" with it,
...
I claim that there isn’t such thing as “morally wrong” -note the words “morally wrong” which in this context does NOT imply anything about “perfection”/”imperfection” so to say that "there isn’t such thing as morally wrong” does NOT imply “the is nothing wrong with the world” because the word “wrong” in the sentence “the is nothing wrong with the world” doesn’t exclusively mean “morally wrong” but can also mean “imperfect” or “unpleasant” etc.
…if you can't do anything wrong then can you do anything right?
….
Whenyou say "right" here, do you exclusively mean MORALLY right?
If so, then that is correct.
If not, then this has no relevance to my claim but the answer would be no because I make mistakes.
…if I killed you then do you think it's wrong?…..
No.
And this wouldn’t change the fact that I still don’t WANT to be killed because I have an EMOTIONAL objection to being killed but with no ‘moral’ beliefs associated with that emotional objection.
Do you think there is any logical inconsistencies with what I think/claim here?
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"Do you think there is any logical inconsistencies with what I think/claim here?[/b]"
[b]…If they are not wrong then tell me do you think anything "wrong" exists
….
In the moral sense of the word “wrong” -nothing "wrong" exists.
This mustn’t be confused with any of the other none-‘moral’ meanings of the word “wrong” such as meaning “unpleasant” or “undesirable” or “incorrect” or “unwise” or “imperfect” etc that the word “wr ...[text shortened]...
Do you think there is any logical inconsistencies with what I think/claim here?[/b]
Yes,
That's incorrect because you can't do something morally right if you can't do something morally wrong because then morality wouldn't exist. If you make mistakes then is that morally wrong?
Originally posted by daniel58…That's incorrect because you CAN’T do something morally right if you can't do something morally wrong
"Do you think there is any logical inconsistencies with what I think/claim here?"
Yes,
That's incorrect because you can't do something morally right if you can't do something morally wrong because then morality wouldn't exist. If you make mistakes then is that morally wrong?[/b]
….(my emphasis)
What?
Did I say you CAN do something “morally right”?
I didn’t say/imply/claim this nor do I believe it.
I think you must have somehow misread my post.
…If you make mistakes then is that morally wrong?
...
No -nor did I say or imply otherwise.
Again, I think you must have somehow misread my post and I think you will see this if you read my post again very carefully.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonLet me just stumble in here. First, I’m going to separate the term “morality” from the term “ethics”—and use the latter. (There’s disagreement on this stuff, but some—like Nietzsche—use the term morality for a fiat-system; and some for a particular cultural set of norms.)
[b]…I don't believe you can derive an 'ought' from an 'is'
...
I think you have hit it on the nail there.
…But as an atheist I don't think your conclusion, as you put it, is very helpful.
….
Does the “helpfulness” of a conclusion have any bearing on whether or not it is the correct conclusion?[/b]
Aristotle (in the Nichomachean Ethics) asked if there is a good that can be considered ultimate, in the sense that it is good-in-itself, and not instrumental for attaining some other good. His answer was eudaimonia, which has been construed as “happiness”, “flourishing” and “well-being” by different translators. I will construe it as “flourishing well-being” (at the risk of redundancy). I would argue that someone living a life that can be generally characterized as one of flourishing well-being is likely to be generally happy, since it is ill-being (physical or mental) that brings unhappiness. [And I think that word “generally” is important, since Aristotle seemed to be thinking in such terms.]
Now if, underlying any pursuit of eudaimonia, there is some bundle of traits that we might call “human nature”, then eudaimonia has to be in accord with that nature. By “human nature”, I do not mean just anything that humans do or might do—but more in some defining sense. For example, humans might steal, but is stealing a trait that defines what it is to be human as opposed to, say, a chimpanzee or a crow? Nor am I looking for a “smoking gun”: that is why I suggest a bundle of traits. For example, humans tend to live as social animals; humans also seem to have a rationality that many other animals (including social animals) do not.
It seems to me that—if Aristotle is right about eudaimonia, and if eudaimonia can be generalized at least somewhat with regard to a bundle of natural human traits—then there is some “natural” conjunction here between “is” and ethics. Perhaps one cannot say, in terms of any fiat-morality, that one “ought” to pursue a life of flourishing well-being—or that a social animal can achieve that best in a society in which the ability of others to do so is equally fostered—but, one might be able to say that such would be a rational, and natural human ethics. (Also, that one’s eudaimonia may be reflective of the eudaimonia of those whom one loves; which eliminates any “problem” of “self-sacrifice” for others.)
Those are very broad strokes. But I am not convinced that “is/ought” is a proper framework. But I do think that an “is” can lead one to behavior conducive to well-being, as opposed to ill-being, both individually and socially. And I think that one might say that to pursue ill-being, both individually and socially, is irrational and (for a being naturally disposed of reason) unnatural. This would not produce any “magic formula”—e.g., in case of conflict between the individual and society in particular circumstances. But it at least provides a framework for ethical thinking.
Originally posted by vistesd…It seems to me that—if Aristotle is right about eudaimonia, and if eudaimonia can be generalized at least somewhat with regard to a bundle of natural human traits—then there is some “natural” conjunction here between “is” and ethics.
Let me just stumble in here. First, I’m going to separate the term “morality” from the term “ethics”—and use the latter. (There’s disagreement on this stuff, but some—like Nietzsche—use the term morality for a fiat-system; and some for a particular cultural set of norms.)
Aristotle (in the Nichomachean Ethics) asked if there is a good that can b ...[text shortened]... society in particular circumstances. But it at least provides a framework for ethical thinking.
….
I don’t know what you mean by “if eudaimonia can be generalized at least somewhat with regard to a bundle of natural human traits” but I think the problem I have here is that I (and somehow I think most other people) don’t take the meaning of the word “ethics“ to mean anything MORE other than sets of beliefs of what is “moral/immoral” so when you are talking about “ethics” here you are not talking about what I (and most other people?) mean by the word.
…... But I do think that an “is” can lead one to behaviour conducive to well-being, as opposed to ill-being,.......
I understand what you mean by that and I agree 🙂 (but this obviously shouldn’t be confused with what is the “moral” thing to do -perhaps it should be called the “wise“ thing to do? ).