Atheism

[phyllo]

Your approach doesn't offer any wisdom for deciding policy, or shaping a social ethos, or managing the laws of a nation, or structuring a penal code, or managing the ethics of a technology, or preserving rights, or any of the other essential social functions morality is supposed to serve.

Oh dear. You’ve effectively just asked Harbal to pass through boyhood, develop the mental equivalent of testicles, and actually think things through.

Or I could just do what you do and read a book full of someone else's thoughts.

The book purports to transcend subjective opinions about morality.

That's a significant advantage over any personal morality.

[Harbal]

Harbal. You need to become agnostic.

Ooh, I don't know about that, Gary.

It is important for you to see that we do not know such things as whether or not there is a God.

No, it isn't important.

[Gary Childress]

Harbal. You need to become agnostic.

Ooh, I don't know about that, Gary.

It is important for you to see that we do not know such things as whether or not there is a God.

No, it isn't important.

Harbal, the end has not yet come. There is still time for you. You see what is happening but you have given up. You have given up because you lack faith. You lack faith because of what others have done and continue to do. It is good that you lack faith. You too are one of God's children. Whether you know it or not. No one can tell you differently.

[Harbal]

Oh dear. You’ve effectively just asked Harbal to pass through boyhood, develop the mental equivalent of testicles, and actually think things through.

Or I could just do what you do and read a book full of someone else's thoughts.

The book purports to transcend subjective opinions about morality.

That's a significant advantage over any personal morality.

If you are referring to the Bible, you are on the wrong track. The Bible wasn't one of the books.

Also, if you did mean the Bible, I don't see any value in it.

[henry quirk]

Just out of interest: what is your foundation for declaring cannibalism objectively wrong?

A man, any man, every man, has, as I say (over and over), an inalienable, natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

So, don't eat people...it's wrong...it's murder....it's theft.

Of course, if the person is already dead, and you're stranded on a mountain top with the corpse, and the dead guy's wishes (about disposal of his body) are unclear, then you can eat him (more accurate to say: you may eat him...if you can).

[Harbal]

Harbal, the end has not yet come. There is still time for you. You see what is happening but you have given up. You have given up because you lack faith. You lack faith because of what others have done and continue to do. It is good that you lack faith. You too are one of God's children. Whether you know it or not. No one can tell you differently.

Yes, I do lack faith, but more than that I lack interest.

[henry quirk]

It seems obvious that a person's morality is mainly conditioned by the culture he is born and raised in

If by this you mean: a person's innate moral intuition, his moral compass, can be screwed with, then yeah, you're right.

If, though, you mean: a person's morality is installed by his culture, then: you're wrong.

[Gary Childress]

Harbal, the end has not yet come. There is still time for you. You see what is happening but you have given up. You have given up because you lack faith. You lack faith because of what others have done and continue to do. It is good that you lack faith. You too are one of God's children. Whether you know it or not. No one can tell you differently.

Yes, I do lack faith, but more than that I lack interest.

That is OK, too. It is OK to lack interest. You lack interest because God has not given you something to be interested in yet. God will never give you more than you can handle. Only a human being would do that. And all human beings are also God's children.

[Harbal]

Just out of interest: what is your foundation for declaring cannibalism objectively wrong?

A man, any man, every man, has, as I say (over and over), an inalienable, natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

So, don't eat people...it's wrong...it's murder....it's theft.

Yes, I know you think that, but where is the objective foundation that makes it more than just your opinion? Is it carved into a mountain by some devine hand, or something?

[phyllo]

Or I could just do what you do and read a book full of someone else's thoughts.

The book purports to transcend subjective opinions about morality.

That's a significant advantage over any personal morality.

If you are referring to the Bible, you are on the wrong track. The Bible wasn't one of the books.

Also, if you did mean the Bible, I don't see any value in it.

"The book" can refer to any number of texts which deal with ethics.

Morality requires that two or more people agree on what is ethical conduct.

Saying "I have this personal morality" doesn't go anywhere. Why should anyone else also have that particular morality? I think that's the point that IC is raising.

The texts tell you why two or more people ought to have that morality.

[Harbal]

It seems obvious that a person's morality is mainly conditioned by the culture he is born and raised in

If by this you mean: a person's innate moral intuition, his moral compass, can be screwed with, then yeah, you're right.

If, though, you mean: a person's morality is installed by his culture, then: you're wrong.

Screwed with is not the term I would use. We seem to come into the world with the capacity for moral sensibility, but, for the most part, what we come to regard as morally good or bad is determined by the prevailing moral landscape of the society we are born into.

[Harbal]

Morality requires that two or more people agree on what is ethical conduct.

Saying "I have this personal morality" doesn't go anywhere. Why should anyone else also have that particular morality? I think that's the point that IC is raising.

The texts tell you why two or more people ought to have that morality.

And from where do these texts get theit authority.

[Harbal]

That is OK, too. It is OK to lack interest. You lack interest because God has not given you something to be interested in yet. God will never give you more than you can handle. Only a human being would do that. And all human beings are also God's children.

Thank you, Gary, but I need no guidance on matters of God.

[Gary Childress]

Just out of interest: what is your foundation for declaring cannibalism objectively wrong?

A man, any man, every man, has, as I say (over and over), an inalienable, natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

So, don't eat people...it's wrong...it's murder....it's theft.

Yes, I know you think that, but where is the objective foundation that makes it more than just your opinion? Is it carved into a mountain by some devine hand, or something?

It is immoral to eat people. That is a translation of what Henry is trying to tell you. You both speak a different metaphysics, however, you are both saying the same thing. We agree.

[phyllo]

Morality requires that two or more people agree on what is ethical conduct.

Saying "I have this personal morality" doesn't go anywhere. Why should anyone else also have that particular morality? I think that's the point that IC is raising.

The texts tell you why two or more people ought to have that morality.

And from where do these texts get theit authority.

Distilled from extensive human experience or god or both.