Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
68 online now:
Pollux (1 member, 67 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps
Post Volume: Total: 887,675 Year: 5,321/14,102 Month: 242/677 Week: 47/54 Day: 0/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheists must appeal to an absolute moral standard when complaining about wrongs.
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 14 of 71 (865174)
10-21-2019 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Christian7
10-20-2019 6:31 PM


We Decide - Not You
Thus, atheists have no basis for complaining about moral wrongs, because they cannot appeal to anything to prove that it is wrong.

Yeah, we do. The whole body of law exists just for this purpose. And that body of law is determined by the secular society by experiencing, discussing, deciding and changing what “morality” is today.

Relative morality has been, is, and will always be alive and well in humanity. Your absolutes, which you cannot follow even within/among your own cults, was rejected many millennia ago.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Christian7, posted 10-20-2019 6:31 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 10-21-2019 4:52 PM AZPaul3 has responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 18 of 71 (865183)
10-21-2019 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
10-21-2019 4:52 PM


Re: We Decide - Not You
The difference being one deals with the reality of life and the other deals with a fantasy.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 10-21-2019 4:52 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 10-21-2019 5:04 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 10-21-2019 11:29 PM AZPaul3 has responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 21 of 71 (865192)
10-21-2019 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Phat
10-21-2019 5:04 PM


Re: We Decide - Not You
Evidenced.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 10-21-2019 5:04 PM Phat has not yet responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 24 of 71 (865211)
10-21-2019 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by GDR
10-21-2019 8:24 PM


So it wasn't the loving thing to do either. Unloving to the max.

But, at the time you could not foresee this.

Tangle's view is equally as unforeseeable. It would have been beneficial except for the unforeseen.

Your objection is not reasonable.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by GDR, posted 10-21-2019 8:24 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 10-22-2019 2:04 AM AZPaul3 has responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 27 of 71 (865229)
10-22-2019 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by GDR
10-22-2019 2:04 AM


The point, GDR, is that doing a moral thing can have negative consequences so therefore it isn't as simple as loving and unloving.

In your view you do a moral thing out of love. Tangle does the same thing out of benefit. You try to negate Tangle's good because of an unseen future negative, yet your good suffers the same consequence.

Does this negate the moral reasonings behind the initial action?

Tangle's claim is that morality boils down to harm or benefit.

He can correct me if I'm wrong but I think Tangle, as you do, assigns the morality to the reason for the initial action.

In neither of your cases would either of you perform the initial action knowing of the negative outcome.

So you're back to square one. Tangle's morality comes down to the benefit expected from an action. Immorality comes down to the harm expected to be done by an action.

If the intention is to give benefit then it is a moral good. If the intent is to do harm then it is a moral bad.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 10-22-2019 2:04 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by GDR, posted 10-22-2019 4:19 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 29 of 71 (865231)
10-22-2019 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
10-21-2019 11:29 PM


Re: We Decide - Not You
according to C S Lewis the spiritiual is the real reality.

Not even. But we already know religious types have the entire world bass-akwards.

If this spirituality were reality then all spirituality, like the moon, would be the same everywhere. We wouldn't have thousands of conflicting often violent cults all springing from the same spiritual base.

It is the different fantasies of spirituality in the human mind that leads directly to the spiritual conflicts of the cults.

Good deeds get rewarded in unexpected ways, bad deeds are followed by various kinds of thwartings and disappointments.

This is a form of cognitive dissonance. If you feel guilty you will find your punishment *somewhere* whether related or not. All you have to do is wait and something will get you. That is a constant of life in this universe.

You drop your toast butter-side down. That's your punishment for thinking ill of your neighbor. A flower pot falling from a second story window does not hit you, just misses your head. That's your reward for helping that old lady with her heavy boxes.

The fact that both of those instances would have happened to you regardless of any actions you took doesn't even occur to you. You are looking for a connection so you await an instance, any instance that would have happened regardless, to attribute to this spiritual connection.

This is a known human psychological thing. Everyone goes through these things. Even someone as brilliantly un-spiritual and reality-based as myself has to wonder what I did to piss-off the universe that it gave me a flat tire. The damn prick.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 10-21-2019 11:29 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 10-22-2019 11:22 AM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 36 of 71 (865261)
10-22-2019 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by GDR
10-22-2019 7:46 PM


rather than just saying harm or benefit it would be more accurate to say: intent to harm or intent to benefit.

Semantics.

Would you say your action is taken with the intent to be loving or with the intent to be unloving? Does it matter that the adjectives are loving/unloving or beneficial/harmful? Are you trying to sneak in a religious connotation?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by GDR, posted 10-22-2019 7:46 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 10-23-2019 12:48 AM AZPaul3 has responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 48 of 71 (865363)
10-23-2019 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by GDR
10-23-2019 12:48 AM


If we use the term loving then intent is implied. That isn't really the case with beneficial.

Shouldn't matter whether the intent is implied or not as long as the intent is to be beneficial it is an intentional good i.e. moral.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 10-23-2019 12:48 AM GDR has not yet responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 49 of 71 (865364)
10-23-2019 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by GDR
10-23-2019 4:17 PM


Just to use the terms harm or benefit focuses on the outcome rather than the intent.

I can see and appreciate your definition, your focus, in the popular vernacular. But, here is where we will disagree.

To say something is beneficial does not void the giver's intent if the outcome was not as desired. You can constrict your view, your definition, to results only or you can give points for effort even if the plan fails.

Look at any action. Was the intent to be beneficial? If the answer is yes then the action was moral.

We can judge all morality by beneficial vs harmful without ever considering the outcome only the intent, and without having to specify "intended to be" to modify the adjective.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by GDR, posted 10-23-2019 4:17 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by GDR, posted 10-24-2019 12:11 AM AZPaul3 has responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 52 of 71 (865369)
10-24-2019 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by GDR
10-24-2019 12:11 AM


The original act was moral because of the intent to "help"...

Paraphrase: The original act was moral because of the intent to "benefit"...

End of story. The morality equation has been satisfied.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by GDR, posted 10-24-2019 12:11 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by GDR, posted 10-24-2019 2:02 AM AZPaul3 has responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 59 of 71 (865392)
10-24-2019 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by GDR
10-24-2019 2:02 AM


It is the intent to "benefit". It isn't simply the benefit itself.

And the outcome doesn't enter the equation.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by GDR, posted 10-24-2019 2:02 AM GDR has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021