Morality without Religion.

@Thomas,

Quote:

I used to have the same problem with the style of William Buckley. The difference is, Buckley was utterly unimpressive once you had cut through the rhetoric.

As I've said before, you're clearly a smart smart guy, Thomas.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT" wrote:

Maybe, after the fact, they seem intuitive. After what fact?

In the case of something like a golden rule, the "facts" would refer to (1) the inevitability of humans will interact, (2) these interactions are repeatable, (3) the actions a human takes in a given interaction can be mimicked, (4) the interactions with different humans are comparable, (5) interactions with the same human repeatedly are comparable with each other, (6) there is a benefit for those interactions to being controlled.

The conclusion would then be that repeated mimickery (retroactive behavior) of a desired behavior is a form of communication; affirmation. Additionally, a pattern of behavior can be influenced (proactively) by demonstrating examples of how you wish to be treated by treating others in such a way. Communicating both past and future actions helps promote order.

Again. Just thinking with my fingers.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Again. Just thinking with my fingers.

It's the safest way TK. It's risk free.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

It is a requirement that the content bep.u[ ethical. It's not, it's doctrinal. Your having repeated Brown's unsubstantiated assertion to that effect does not constitute evidence, nor does it contribute anything new to an argument which i don't consider Brown to have sustained. I see no reason to argue the entire thing out with you once more. If you can't show that it's ethical, as opposed to believers merely opining that it's an ethical matter, you can't sustain the case. There is little point in repeating the whole silly brouhaha with you.

3 Replies

@Setanta,

What the point of telling us that there's little point Set? That's the pseudo-intellectual's way of slamming the door and striding down the corridor thrummingly.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

If it's a moral or ethical issue to them, I don't really see how your standing at the sideline saying "no it isn't" really matters.

Your claiming it not to be a moral issue is no less of an ipse dixit than ebrown's claiming that it is one.

0 Replies

Nonsense. If the issue were simply theism, then it begs the entire question. If the issue is the specific injunctions of the first commandment, then all Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Parsi, Shintoists, Taoists, etc., etc., etc.--are unethical because they don't subscribe to the Jawists. The injunction is clearly a doctrinal. To further claim that it's ethical is to assume a burden of proof which Brown did not meet, and you have not met. What someone's opinion is in the matter hardly applies if the case can't be sustained.

As i've already noted, i've gone over all of this with Brown. You offer nothing new. I believe you just want to argue because you're a shithook when it comes to anything i post, and you rarely pass up an opportunity to attempt to argue with me. Go back and read the exchange between Brown and me, it covers everything you've come up with, because you've come up with nothing new.

3 Replies

@Setanta,

Set avoids anything new by resorting to the Ignore feature. At least slamming the door and striding down the corridor is sexy if done in 8 inch stiletto heels.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Pshaw. The requirement was not a universal ethical statement. That's something you're adding after the fact.

The truth is, many religions place moral restrictions that are specific to the creed. Dietary rules. Don't work on the Sabbath. Blasphemy.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I believe you just want to argue because you're a shithook when it comes to anything i post

Don't blame me because you're wrong so often....

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Ethics prescribes your behavior--what you must and must not do. Doctrine prescribes your creed--what you must and must not believe.

I doubt that this argument would hold up very well for God. He/She didn't make it the second, the fifth or even the seventh commandment. He/She made it the first, placing it ahead of killing, adultery, watching basketball and a few other things.

If I'm not mistaken, He/She would have been fine with the drinking, bestiality, adultery, fornication, and a host of other fun things, these things all having been done numerous times and numerous places before and since but when the false gods were trotted out, well, we all know what happened, that spelled the end for that little town.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

that spelled the end for that little town.

Two towns, I guess it was.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Killing someone --> a sin --> a breach of ethics

Boinking your neighbor's wife --> a double sin --> a breach of two "ethics"
[how come the ladies get off scott free while I'm, ... ummmm, that guy is headin' for big time heat?]

Adoring other gods --> a sin --> a breach of ethics

Now I can see your point too, Set but I think that I can see it only because of the side of the fence that I'm on. To me, an atheist/agnostic, it's silly even to consider that an all powerful god would worry about someone adoring other gods, ones that I suppose the god knows, don't even exist, so it doesn't seem like a breach of ethics at all. I'm thinking that the two sides hold slightly different views of what 'ethics' entails.

0 Replies

If we accept that morality is system of beliefs regarding right and wrong conduct, then the first commandment (depending on how you number them) isn't a moral injunction at all, since it doesn't command right conduct but rather right belief. The first commandment, in other words, doesn't tell people how they should act, it tells them what they should believe.

In a broader sense, though, the ten commandments aren't actually ethical rules, since they all are backed with an implicit (or sometimes explicit) threat of punishment. If someone, for instance, refrains from coveting his neighbor's wife only because he's afraid of god's wrath, then it is debatable whether or not he is acting morally, since he is motivated by fear of doing what is wrong rather than by a desire to do what is right.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

then the first commandment (depending on how you number them) isn't a moral injunction at all, since it doesn't command right conduct but rather right belief.

I think that there's an action in there, a conducting that is more than a belief, Joe. Did it not entail the building of actual representations of other gods and all the bowing and scraping associated with adoring such representations. That seems like conduct to me.

0 Replies

I've skimmed through this thread where most appear to assume that"atheism" , "morality" and "religion are some sort of fixed constellation of of behaviours and beliefs associated with a individuals or groups. The fact is, terms shift as the individual shifts from day to day or context to context. Thus to take extreme cases,the so-called "believer" of yesterday, finds him/herself in a war today say, and switches off " shall not kill" mode. Or more usually, "atheists" such as myself, find myself at religious ceremonies "out of respect for" the participants, even though I argue elsewhere that organized religion is "pernicious".

So I conclude that "positions" on morality etc are merely ephemeral postures adopted within particular social negotiations and that those negotiations can be primarily internal (self with self). It is only in cases of "moral dilemmas" and attempted justification of subsequent actions where those positions have any real significance i.e. with respect to being able to "live with oneself".

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

I'm not wrong as often as you are. You take positions and argue them just to be arguing, and not because you have any sound basis for defending your position.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

My position is that the first commandment is not an ethical injunction at all, but a doctrinal prescription. See Joe's subsequent post, largely to the same effect. The first commandment doesn't prescribe ethical or moral behavior, it prescribes belief. It is a doctrinal injunction, and therefore not a refutation of Hitchen's claim about ethical behavior on the part of non-believers.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

If we accept that morality is system of beliefs regarding right and wrong conduct, then the first commandment (depending on how you number them) isn't a moral injunction at all, since it doesn't command right conduct but rather right belief. The first commandment, in other words, doesn't tell people how they should act, it tells them what they should believe.

I'm not so sure about this distinction. After all, to "have" gods does imply behavior such as praying to them, sacrificing to them, and so forth. Hence, a Christian could indeed argue that to have other gods before Yahwe implies wrongful conduct towards God, not just a wrongful belief.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

That would not make the argument valid. Having an opinion is not equivalent to being right about the matter under discussion. As i've already pointed out more than once (because Brown would not answer the objection, and now DD won't answer it either), the first commandment requires belief in Jehovah, which, if one accepts a claim that this is an ethical injunction, would mean that Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Parsis, Taoists, Buddhists--a host of billions of believers, could not be ethical because they do not believe in Jehovah.

4 Replies

Morality without Religion.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know