Source of ethics, and morality

[Brynmr]

So none of you can define 'evil' yet you all have so much to say about it. Odd.

Well, isn't that rather the point? The concepts of good and evil are entirely subjective, making any sort of definitive definition of the terms, not relevant to each other, rather difficult.

No. Good and evil are not subjective. Moral relativism is subjective. By your logic hot and cold are subjective because their definitions are relevant to each other. Relevance is not a condition of subjectivity. Perception is a condition of subjectivity.

Moral relativism is also an assault on morality, isn't it. I always hated moral relativism. It's so cowardly.

 

[the_human_being]

The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most.

The reasoning for theists is that for absolute moral law, there must be a lawgiver. The analogy used is human law that requires a legislature to make the law, and a judiciary to enforce it. The problem with this reasoning is that theists are conflating two different concepts - morality, and legality. It is true that law requires both a legislature and judiciary, however, as demonstrated by Jim Crow, as well as other laws, having a lawgiver is not, itself, a guarantee of moral, or just laws. Thus the analogy, as well as the premise rather falls apart.

So, what guarantees that moral laws are, in fact, moral? Logically it must be that the law-enactors and enforcers are acting within the confines of morality. However, this requires that morality had to proceed legality. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God. However, according to theists, there is no morality independent of God.

Socrates make this exact point when he asked "is good good be cause it is good, and good gods choose good, or is good good, because the gods choose it? If it is the former then good is simply good, and God has nothing to do with it; God is only "good", because He chooses to do that which is good. If it is the latter, then good is entirely arbitrary and is solely dependent on God's whim.

So, the question becomes, if God cannot, logically, be the source of morality, then what is, and how does one know what is "good"?

"The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most."

Could you be so kind as to back up your claim with a link to an actual study of this by a reliable and respected individual or firm?

 

[Czernobog]

So none of you can define 'evil' yet you all have so much to say about it. Odd.

Well, isn't that rather the point? The concepts of good and evil are entirely subjective, making any sort of definitive definition of the terms, not relevant to each other, rather difficult.

Ok then why would it be universally accepted that someone with a gun who murders 43 2nd grade innocent school children has committed an evil act?

I would submit that it wouldn't. Clearly the someone who did that didn't think it was evil. Or, are you suggesting that some people do evil for the sake of evil? I present to you Hitler, and the NAZIs who thought it was not at all evil to kill 400,000 men, women, and children.

Then you are one of those people who have an irrational fear of taking a position on anything. This makes you a tool of all manner of moral depravity and oppressive ideologies. I find that many of the alt-Left have this phobia.

Your personal attack aside, your conclusion lacks a logical foundation. You asked why the idea of killing 43 2nd graders would be universally considered evil. I merely pointed out the flaw in your question. What evidence do you have that the opinion is universal?

 

[Czernobog]

The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most.

The reasoning for theists is that for absolute moral law, there must be a lawgiver. The analogy used is human law that requires a legislature to make the law, and a judiciary to enforce it. The problem with this reasoning is that theists are conflating two different concepts - morality, and legality. It is true that law requires both a legislature and judiciary, however, as demonstrated by Jim Crow, as well as other laws, having a lawgiver is not, itself, a guarantee of moral, or just laws. Thus the analogy, as well as the premise rather falls apart.

So, what guarantees that moral laws are, in fact, moral? Logically it must be that the law-enactors and enforcers are acting within the confines of morality. However, this requires that morality had to proceed legality. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God. However, according to theists, there is no morality independent of God.

Socrates make this exact point when he asked "is good good be cause it is good, and good gods choose good, or is good good, because the gods choose it? If it is the former then good is simply good, and God has nothing to do with it; God is only "good", because He chooses to do that which is good. If it is the latter, then good is entirely arbitrary and is solely dependent on God's whim.

So, the question becomes, if God cannot, logically, be the source of morality, then what is, and how does one know what is "good"?

"The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most."

Could you be so kind as to back up your claim with a link to an actual study of this by a reliable and respected individual or firm?

Are you suggesting that this isn't the position of theists in regard to atheists and morality? I might suggest that you peruse this article on atheism, written from the "conservative" perspective. Or, perhaps, you might find this article, written from theists enlightening on the theistic opinions of atheists.

 

[the_human_being]

The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most.

The reasoning for theists is that for absolute moral law, there must be a lawgiver. The analogy used is human law that requires a legislature to make the law, and a judiciary to enforce it. The problem with this reasoning is that theists are conflating two different concepts - morality, and legality. It is true that law requires both a legislature and judiciary, however, as demonstrated by Jim Crow, as well as other laws, having a lawgiver is not, itself, a guarantee of moral, or just laws. Thus the analogy, as well as the premise rather falls apart.

So, what guarantees that moral laws are, in fact, moral? Logically it must be that the law-enactors and enforcers are acting within the confines of morality. However, this requires that morality had to proceed legality. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God. However, according to theists, there is no morality independent of God.

Socrates make this exact point when he asked "is good good be cause it is good, and good gods choose good, or is good good, because the gods choose it? If it is the former then good is simply good, and God has nothing to do with it; God is only "good", because He chooses to do that which is good. If it is the latter, then good is entirely arbitrary and is solely dependent on God's whim.

So, the question becomes, if God cannot, logically, be the source of morality, then what is, and how does one know what is "good"?

"The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most."

Could you be so kind as to back up your claim with a link to an actual study of this by a reliable and respected individual or firm?

Are you suggesting that this isn't the position of theists in regard to atheists and morality? I might suggest that you peruse this article on atheism, written from the "conservative" perspective. Or, perhaps, you might find this article, written from theists enlightening on the theistic opinions of atheists.

Thank you. I totally concur with their findings.

 

[Czernobog]

The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most.

The reasoning for theists is that for absolute moral law, there must be a lawgiver. The analogy used is human law that requires a legislature to make the law, and a judiciary to enforce it. The problem with this reasoning is that theists are conflating two different concepts - morality, and legality. It is true that law requires both a legislature and judiciary, however, as demonstrated by Jim Crow, as well as other laws, having a lawgiver is not, itself, a guarantee of moral, or just laws. Thus the analogy, as well as the premise rather falls apart.

So, what guarantees that moral laws are, in fact, moral? Logically it must be that the law-enactors and enforcers are acting within the confines of morality. However, this requires that morality had to proceed legality. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God. However, according to theists, there is no morality independent of God.

Socrates make this exact point when he asked "is good good be cause it is good, and good gods choose good, or is good good, because the gods choose it? If it is the former then good is simply good, and God has nothing to do with it; God is only "good", because He chooses to do that which is good. If it is the latter, then good is entirely arbitrary and is solely dependent on God's whim.

So, the question becomes, if God cannot, logically, be the source of morality, then what is, and how does one know what is "good"?

"The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most."

Could you be so kind as to back up your claim with a link to an actual study of this by a reliable and respected individual or firm?

Are you suggesting that this isn't the position of theists in regard to atheists and morality? I might suggest that you peruse this article on atheism, written from the "conservative" perspective. Or, perhaps, you might find this article, written from theists enlightening on the theistic opinions of atheists.

Thank you. I totally concur with their findings.

Then, perhaps you would like to comment on the rest of my OP?

 

[ding]

So none of you can define 'evil' yet you all have so much to say about it. Odd.

Well, isn't that rather the point? The concepts of good and evil are entirely subjective, making any sort of definitive definition of the terms, not relevant to each other, rather difficult.

No. Good and evil are not subjective. Moral relativism is subjective. By your logic hot and cold are subjective because their definitions are relevant to each other. Relevance is not a condition of subjectivity. Perception is a condition of subjectivity.

Moral relativism is also an assault on morality, isn't it. I always hated moral relativism. It's so cowardly.

Agreed and an assault on objectivity too.

 

[the_human_being]

The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most.

The reasoning for theists is that for absolute moral law, there must be a lawgiver. The analogy used is human law that requires a legislature to make the law, and a judiciary to enforce it. The problem with this reasoning is that theists are conflating two different concepts - morality, and legality. It is true that law requires both a legislature and judiciary, however, as demonstrated by Jim Crow, as well as other laws, having a lawgiver is not, itself, a guarantee of moral, or just laws. Thus the analogy, as well as the premise rather falls apart.

So, what guarantees that moral laws are, in fact, moral? Logically it must be that the law-enactors and enforcers are acting within the confines of morality. However, this requires that morality had to proceed legality. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God. However, according to theists, there is no morality independent of God.

Socrates make this exact point when he asked "is good good be cause it is good, and good gods choose good, or is good good, because the gods choose it? If it is the former then good is simply good, and God has nothing to do with it; God is only "good", because He chooses to do that which is good. If it is the latter, then good is entirely arbitrary and is solely dependent on God's whim.

So, the question becomes, if God cannot, logically, be the source of morality, then what is, and how does one know what is "good"?

"The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most."

Could you be so kind as to back up your claim with a link to an actual study of this by a reliable and respected individual or firm?

Are you suggesting that this isn't the position of theists in regard to atheists and morality? I might suggest that you peruse this article on atheism, written from the "conservative" perspective. Or, perhaps, you might find this article, written from theists enlightening on the theistic opinions of atheists.

Thank you. I totally concur with their findings.

Then, perhaps you would like to comment on the rest of my OP?

Not really interested other than wondering where you got your information from. What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

 

[BreezeWood]

The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most.

The reasoning for theists is that for absolute moral law, there must be a lawgiver. The analogy used is human law that requires a legislature to make the law, and a judiciary to enforce it. The problem with this reasoning is that theists are conflating two different concepts - morality, and legality. It is true that law requires both a legislature and judiciary, however, as demonstrated by Jim Crow, as well as other laws, having a lawgiver is not, itself, a guarantee of moral, or just laws. Thus the analogy, as well as the premise rather falls apart.

So, what guarantees that moral laws are, in fact, moral? Logically it must be that the law-enactors and enforcers are acting within the confines of morality. However, this requires that morality had to proceed legality. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God. However, according to theists, there is no morality independent of God.

Socrates make this exact point when he asked "is good good be cause it is good, and good gods choose good, or is good good, because the gods choose it? If it is the former then good is simply good, and God has nothing to do with it; God is only "good", because He chooses to do that which is good. If it is the latter, then good is entirely arbitrary and is solely dependent on God's whim.

So, the question becomes, if God cannot, logically, be the source of morality, then what is, and how does one know what is "good"?

"The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most."

Could you be so kind as to back up your claim with a link to an actual study of this by a reliable and respected individual or firm?

Are you suggesting that this isn't the position of theists in regard to atheists and morality? I might suggest that you peruse this article on atheism, written from the "conservative" perspective. Or, perhaps, you might find this article, written from theists enlightening on the theistic opinions of atheists.

Thank you. I totally concur with their findings.

Then, perhaps you would like to comment on the rest of my OP?

Not really interested other than wondering where you got your information from. What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

.

What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

surly the same is said reverently of your god for them as well ... in your church.

.

 

[the_human_being]

"The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most."

Could you be so kind as to back up your claim with a link to an actual study of this by a reliable and respected individual or firm?

Are you suggesting that this isn't the position of theists in regard to atheists and morality? I might suggest that you peruse this article on atheism, written from the "conservative" perspective. Or, perhaps, you might find this article, written from theists enlightening on the theistic opinions of atheists.

Thank you. I totally concur with their findings.

Then, perhaps you would like to comment on the rest of my OP?

Not really interested other than wondering where you got your information from. What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

.

What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

surly the same is said reverently of your god for them as well ... in your church.

.

What makes you believe atheists are important enough to even be discussed at my church? Have you ever attended my church?

 

[Czernobog]

Are you suggesting that this isn't the position of theists in regard to atheists and morality? I might suggest that you peruse this article on atheism, written from the "conservative" perspective. Or, perhaps, you might find this article, written from theists enlightening on the theistic opinions of atheists.

Thank you. I totally concur with their findings.

Then, perhaps you would like to comment on the rest of my OP?

Not really interested other than wondering where you got your information from. What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

.

What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

surly the same is said reverently of your god for them as well ... in your church.

.

What makes you believe atheists are important enough to even be discussed at my church? Have you ever attended my church?

Wow. I like this guy's church. "Atheists? Fuck them. We don't give even a single fuck about anyone not already converted, or at least not begging to be converted. We gotta work at it? Fuck that. Too much effort,"

I actually kinda wanna attend a service at this guy's church. Sounds like it would be fun.

 

[the_human_being]

Thank you. I totally concur with their findings.

Then, perhaps you would like to comment on the rest of my OP?

Not really interested other than wondering where you got your information from. What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

.

What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

surly the same is said reverently of your god for them as well ... in your church.

.

What makes you believe atheists are important enough to even be discussed at my church? Have you ever attended my church?

Wow. I like this guy's church. "Atheists? Fuck them. We don't give even a single fuck about anyone not already converted, or at least not begging to be converted. We gotta work at it? Fuck that. Too much effort,"

I actually kinda wanna attend a service at this guy's church. Sounds like it would be fun.

Actually, you assign far too much importance to yourself and other atheists. In spite of what you appear to wish, you are not really the subject matter you would like to be.

 

[Czernobog]

Then, perhaps you would like to comment on the rest of my OP?

Not really interested other than wondering where you got your information from. What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

.

What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

surly the same is said reverently of your god for them as well ... in your church.

.

What makes you believe atheists are important enough to even be discussed at my church? Have you ever attended my church?

Wow. I like this guy's church. "Atheists? Fuck them. We don't give even a single fuck about anyone not already converted, or at least not begging to be converted. We gotta work at it? Fuck that. Too much effort,"

I actually kinda wanna attend a service at this guy's church. Sounds like it would be fun.

Actually, you assign far too much importance to yourself and other atheists. In spite of what you appear to wish, you are not really the subject matter you would like to be.

Well, good. Feel free to take your imaginary magic skyman, and run along..

 

[Brynmr]

Your personal attack aside, your conclusion lacks a logical foundation. You asked why the idea of killing 43 2nd graders would be universally considered evil. I merely pointed out the flaw in your question. What evidence do you have that the opinion is universal?

For the same reason robbing a bank would be universally considered wrong by all but the thieves. Obviously the perps and people too cowardly to take a moral stand on anything, would have a differing opinion. There is no flaw in my argument. The flaw is your relativism.

 

[Czernobog]

Your personal attack aside, your conclusion lacks a logical foundation. You asked why the idea of killing 43 2nd graders would be universally considered evil. I merely pointed out the flaw in your question. What evidence do you have that the opinion is universal?

For the same reason robbing a bank would be universally considered wrong by all but the thieves. Obviously the perps and people too cowardly to take a moral stand on anything, would have a differing opinion. There is no flaw in my argument. The flaw is your relativism.

"By all but..." implies with their very words, that the moral principle is not universal. By definition, any principle that is universal would be held without exception. As soon as you are able to list exceptions, that negates the claim that the principle is universal.

 

[BreezeWood]

Are you suggesting that this isn't the position of theists in regard to atheists and morality? I might suggest that you peruse this article on atheism, written from the "conservative" perspective. Or, perhaps, you might find this article, written from theists enlightening on the theistic opinions of atheists.

Thank you. I totally concur with their findings.

Then, perhaps you would like to comment on the rest of my OP?

Not really interested other than wondering where you got your information from. What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

.

What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

surly the same is said reverently of your god for them as well ... in your church.

.

What makes you believe atheists are important enough to even be discussed at my church? Have you ever attended my church?

.

What makes you believe atheists are important enough to even be discussed at my church? Have you ever attended my church?

the same as your saying it yourself after inquiring for the source, that being most likely your own church's "discussion" ... not to mention the Commandment from the Almighty that all or non will survive the final judgement, "together".

hate mongerers need not apply.

.

 

[the_human_being]

Thank you. I totally concur with their findings.

Then, perhaps you would like to comment on the rest of my OP?

Not really interested other than wondering where you got your information from. What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

.

What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

surly the same is said reverently of your god for them as well ... in your church.

.

What makes you believe atheists are important enough to even be discussed at my church? Have you ever attended my church?

.

What makes you believe atheists are important enough to even be discussed at my church? Have you ever attended my church?

the same as your saying it yourself after inquiring for the source, that being most likely your own church's "discussion" ... not to mention the Commandment from the Almighty that all or non will survive the final judgement, "together".

hate mongerers need not apply.

.

Hate to burst your little self-importance bubble but believe me you atheists are very seldom discussed at any church I have ever been in, but you go right ahead with your strawman self esteem.

 

[the_human_being]

Not really interested other than wondering where you got your information from. What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

.

What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

surly the same is said reverently of your god for them as well ... in your church.

.

What makes you believe atheists are important enough to even be discussed at my church? Have you ever attended my church?

Wow. I like this guy's church. "Atheists? Fuck them. We don't give even a single fuck about anyone not already converted, or at least not begging to be converted. We gotta work at it? Fuck that. Too much effort,"

I actually kinda wanna attend a service at this guy's church. Sounds like it would be fun.

Actually, you assign far too much importance to yourself and other atheists. In spite of what you appear to wish, you are not really the subject matter you would like to be.

Well, good. Feel free to take your imaginary magic skyman, and run along..

I agree. There is certainly nothing of interest nor importance being discussed here.

 

[Czernobog]

.
surly the same is said reverently of your god for them as well ... in your church.

.

What makes you believe atheists are important enough to even be discussed at my church? Have you ever attended my church?

Wow. I like this guy's church. "Atheists? Fuck them. We don't give even a single fuck about anyone not already converted, or at least not begging to be converted. We gotta work at it? Fuck that. Too much effort,"

I actually kinda wanna attend a service at this guy's church. Sounds like it would be fun.

Actually, you assign far too much importance to yourself and other atheists. In spite of what you appear to wish, you are not really the subject matter you would like to be.

Well, good. Feel free to take your imaginary magic skyman, and run along..

I agree. There is certainly nothing of interest nor importance being discussed here.

...and yet you keep responding. Seems we're, at least, important enough to you, and your fellow theists for you to take as much time as you need to convince us that we aren't important. Although I do agree. Since there is clearly no God, even discussing the idea of an imaginary God being the author of morality is neither interesting, nor important, as the conclusion is self-evident. No God, so morality comes from self, or, at best, from a cultural agreement.

 

[the_human_being]

What makes you believe atheists are important enough to even be discussed at my church? Have you ever attended my church?

Wow. I like this guy's church. "Atheists? Fuck them. We don't give even a single fuck about anyone not already converted, or at least not begging to be converted. We gotta work at it? Fuck that. Too much effort,"

I actually kinda wanna attend a service at this guy's church. Sounds like it would be fun.

Actually, you assign far too much importance to yourself and other atheists. In spite of what you appear to wish, you are not really the subject matter you would like to be.

Well, good. Feel free to take your imaginary magic skyman, and run along..

I agree. There is certainly nothing of interest nor importance being discussed here.

...and yet you keep responding. Seems we're, at least, important enough to you, and your fellow theists for you to take as much time as you need to convince us that we aren't important.

Actually, I do get some small pleasure out of exposing bigots.