4 of 9
4
Does Morality Really Have to do with questions of happiness/suffering?
Posted: 18 March 2008 04:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29
waltercat - 18 March 2008 02:08 PM

. . .
But something’s being considered unjust (or just) is different from its actually being unjust.

Waltercat, are you a Platonist, a Modern Platonist, or an emotionalist? I hope none of the above, but am not counting on it.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 March 2008 04:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02
LPM - 18 March 2008 07:58 PM

the only way you can have such a timeless truth of justice or morality is with a god, as Dostoevsky pointed out

But that is wrong.  God does not help explain how morality is possible, as Plato proved in the Euthyphro.

God has nothing to do with morality.  Read the “Absurd Theologians and Atheists” thread to see my arguments.

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 March 2008 04:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02
homunculus - 18 March 2008 08:09 PM
waltercat - 18 March 2008 02:08 PM

. . .
But something’s being considered unjust (or just) is different from its actually being unjust.

Waltercat, are you a Platonist, a Modern Platonist, or an emotionalist? I hope none of the above, but am not counting on it.

None of the above.

(what is an emotionalist?)

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 March 2008 04:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  805
Joined  2007-08-28

If a parent does NOT have total authority over the life of a child, that suggests that the parent has yielded the authority over the life of the child to society, or more correctly, society has usurped that authority. How is this rational or reasonable or scientific?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 March 2008 04:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

Waltercat
It seems you have met your match here. You have forever argued for an objective morality without God and now you have met the fruits of a godless morality. infanticide. Hang on to that DCT. It will give you solace when talking to pagans and fundamentalists. It will be ignored by your atheist peers who do not believe in an objective good and ignored by traditional religions because it is not what they believe. So you are stuck with a perplexing dilemma. “The child torturing is in bad taste atheist set” or “the objectively wrong God says so set”, It seems your world is divided into these two groups. Where will waltercat lay his head?

For the umpteenth time, Plato does not deny the existence of God nor does he rule out God being the source of the good. All he does is demonstrate that God cannot change the good.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 March 2008 05:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  20
Joined  2008-03-15
waltercat - 18 March 2008 08:35 PM

But that is wrong.  God does not help explain how morality is possible, as Plato proved in the Euthyphro.

It may not explain your imaginary morality that doesn’t exist - but morality really is a set of rules, a “consensus” as someone pointed out earlier, and with a God you can invent a divine, unquestionable morality or “consensus”

I don’t necessarily think Christian crowing about morality is such a good thing for them though - it’s like a closed circuit, sucking their own cocks because they introduced new standards of virtue and then congratulating themselves that their ‘version’ of morality is so virtuous

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 March 2008 06:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02
frankr - 18 March 2008 08:59 PM

Waltercat
It seems you have met your match here. You have forever argued for an objective morality without God and now you have met the fruits of a godless morality. infanticide. Hang on to that DCT. It will give you solace when talking to pagans and fundamentalists. It will be ignored by your atheist peers who do not believe in an objective good and ignored by traditional religions because it is not what they believe. So you are stuck with a perplexing dilemma. “The child torturing is in bad taste atheist set” or “the objectively wrong God says so set”, It seems your world is divided into these two groups. Where will waltercat lay his head? .

You take the opinions expressed on this forum to be representative of considered, well-thought-out and rational opinion?  Better think again.

I know that most atheists believe (1) morality is objective and (2) God is not the source of morality.  The fact that a few overzealous and not-very-careful posters on this forum think otherwise is no indication that the dichotomy you describe is an accurate one.

My atheist peers understand that morality is objective and that God has nothing to do with it.

[ Edited: 18 March 2008 10:05 PM by waltercat]
 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 March 2008 06:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15
waltercat - 18 March 2008 10:10 PM

I know that most atheists believe (1) morality is objective and (2) God is not the source of morality.  The fact that a few overzealous and not-very-careful posters on this forum think otherwise is no indication that the dichotomy you describe is an accurate one.

My atheist peers understand that morality is objective and that God has nothing to do with it.

“morality is objective” is an atheist belief? I’m an atheist and I believe no such thing…... If morality isn’t subjective i.e. something we invented, then it had to come out of the BB with everything else. So how did it get there if not by a god of any other name….....

On questions like this where people argue that they have some right (rights are totally subjective BTW) to inflict their will upon someone else, I agree and simply point out that I have the same right so don’t get upset when I inflict mine upon you.

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 March 2008 10:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02
GAD - 18 March 2008 10:58 PM

“morality is objective” is an atheist belief?

No, that is not what I said. I said that there are intelligent and rational atheists who have thought long and hard about this issue and have come to the conclusion that morality is objective.  In fact, most atheists (including Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens) believe that there are objective moral standards (the appeal to such standards plays a very important role in Hitchens’ arguments against the existence of God.)

I’m an atheist and I believe no such thing…..

I could be wrong, but my suspicion is that you have not given it enough thought.  I recommend reading Hitchens book; or the book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels, or Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill or Ethics Without God by Kai Nielsen, or Atheism, Morality, and Meaning by Michael Martin.  All of the authors mentioned are atheists and all of them believe that morality is objective.

On questions like this where people argue that they have some right (rights are totally subjective BTW) to inflict their will upon someone else, I agree and simply point out that I have the same right so don’t get upset when I inflict mine upon you.

It is an objective fact that you have such a right (or just your opinion)??  If it is an objective fact, then there is at least one objective moral standard: namely, that you have that right.  If it is just your opinion, then who cares? Why are you asserting that you have that right?

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 March 2008 10:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  20
Joined  2008-03-15

I think anyone who wants to look at an analysis of subjective morality should read the philosophy of Marquis de Sade - he rips through objective morality like a libertine wildly depucelating a girl of 13

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 March 2008 11:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19
LPM - 19 March 2008 02:49 AM

I think anyone who wants to look at an analysis of subjective morality should read the philosophy of Marquis de Sade - he rips through objective morality like a libertine wildly depucelating a girl of 13

If anyone wants a down to earth, cogent argument for the existence of objective morality, all they have to do is talk to the father of the girl raped by the Marquis de Sade. There is a reason he is reviled now and in his day.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 March 2008 11:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  20
Joined  2008-03-15
frankr - 19 March 2008 03:35 AM

If anyone wants a down to earth, cogent argument for the existence of objective morality, all they have to do is talk to the father of the girl raped by the Marquis de Sade.

or they could talk to waltercat

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2008 12:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15

“No, that is not what I said”

Good grief! Your quote is right above. What you said is

I know that most atheists believe (1) morality is objective and (2) God is not the source of morality.  The fact that a few overzealous and not-very-careful posters on this forum think otherwise is no indication that the dichotomy you describe is an accurate one.”

So all you are doing here is backpedaling, from most atheists believe Vs a few overzealous ones, to, I meant a few of the more famous ones….......

“In fact, most atheists (including Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens) believe that there are objective moral standards (the appeal to such standards plays a very important role in Hitchens’ arguments against the existence of God.)”

I’ve read them all (not that that means squat) and I don’t recall any objective moral standards being stated. Only arguments for moral standards based on evolution that don’t require god. If you have a reference to a page in one of their books that explicitly states that they believe there are objective morals, I’ll read it.

“All of the authors mentioned are atheists and all of them believe that morality is objective.”

So 5 guys that who wrote books makes it true? So all I need is to find 6 guys who wrote books that believe otherwise and that proves definitely that there are no objective morals….....

“It is an objective fact that you have such a right (or just your opinion)??”

Of course it’s subjective, otherwise it would be a contradiction, wouldn’t it.

“If it is just your opinion, then who cares? Why are you asserting that you have that right?”

Who cares about yours? As stated you subjectively believe that you have the right to make bullshit statements on this site and I subjectively believe that I have the right to point out that they are bullshit.

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2008 08:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15

Oh I forgot, where did the objective morality come from?

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2008 08:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02

Do you see what I mean frankr???

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 9
4
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed