Philosophy Now Forum

Necromancer wrote:

thedoc wrote:...The comment about Atheists lacking a moral compass is false, Atheists use a moral compass of doing no harm to others, which is better than some religions preach...

No, they are the Humanists! How powerful can "stamp collecting" be in providing a moral compass? Isn't a moral mistake to an Atheist just another mistake?

Atheists in my experience tend to think more about morality than religious people. Religious people do not pursue morality, instead they comply with dogma.
As it is only being free of god are we also free to look at morality unfettered from cant and dogma.

That is not so say that this applies to all atheists. Atheist do not share any particular views on morality because they are atheists. The only thing in common ALL atheists have is a lack of a belief in god.

sthitapragya wrote:

Necromancer wrote:I just say that Atheists are dangerous people because they lack the moral compass of religion that both rewards (Heaven etc.) and threatens with punishment (fear of Hell etc.).

What you basically mean is that you would rape and torture if you found out that there was no God and no punishment. It is the fear of God and the punishment which prevents you from doing these things. Thank God you are not an atheist. Just keep believing in God otherwise you will end up in prison.

If he does go to prison he can join many other theists who swell the ranks of inmates at a higher proportion than in society at large.
Obviously fear of god does not work to keep people lawful.
Theism predicts poverty, and that is how theism out does itself in gaol.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

Necromancer wrote:I just say that Atheists are dangerous people because they lack the moral compass of religion that both rewards (Heaven etc.) and threatens with punishment (fear of Hell etc.).

What you basically mean is that you would rape and torture if you found out that there was no God and no punishment. It is the fear of God and the punishment which prevents you from doing these things. Thank God you are not an atheist. Just keep believing in God otherwise you will end up in prison.

If he does go to prison he can join many other theists who swell the ranks of inmates at a higher proportion than in society at large.
Obviously fear of god does not work to keep people lawful.
Theism predicts poverty, and that is how theism out does itself in gaol.

He is an ignorant moron. He has not done any research and he does not have the mental capacity to handle atheism. At least in his case theism seems to work by keeping him going out on the streets to do unspeakable things. If guys like him are kept in control due to fear of God, then I say more power to God.

thedoc wrote:It is my understanding that most Atheists base their ethics on harm to others, in that if an action hurts another person, they refrain. I know there are complex situations that some will quote to prove things one way or the other, but an Atheist will take each situation and assess it according to what they know of the situation.

I don't use a "principled" approach (a principle would be something like, "X is morally wrong just in case it involves harm to others").

I used to be attracted to principled approaches, but then they just started seeming very silly to me, and it seems like principled approaches often lead to absurd stances.

Since I'm an emotivist anyway, I simply go by how I feel about the situation at hand, on a case by case basis. It's a more pragmatic approach that seems a lot more reasonable to me.

sthitapragya wrote:Ethics are based on how society reacts to a particular behaviour. If the reaction is good, it needs to be adopted and if the reaction is bad, it needs to be discarded. Simple as that.

Gee, I sure don't agree with a mob rule/argumentum ad populum approach. I know that's what determines what's socially acceptable--that's basically a tautology, after all--but I don't agree that that is what ethics is or what it should be.

There are quite a few things where I feel the social consensus is despicable.

Necromancer wrote:I just say that Atheists are dangerous people because they lack the moral compass of religion that both rewards (Heaven etc.) and threatens with punishment (fear of Hell etc.).

How powerful can "stamp collecting" be in providing a moral compass? Isn't a moral mistake to an Atheist just another mistake?

Aren't Atheists more likely to torture other people out of sheer pleasure? Aren't Atheists dangerous people?

I think they are. However, I like the Humanists. Please, remember that there are Religious Humanists as well.

Way to not engage with any of the responses you received. That's a quality approach to doing philosophy.

Necromancer wrote:

thedoc wrote:...The comment about Atheists lacking a moral compass is false, Atheists use a moral compass of doing no harm to others, which is better than some religions preach...

No, they are the Humanists! How powerful can "stamp collecting" be in providing a moral compass? Isn't a moral mistake to an Atheist just another mistake?

What the heck does the "stamp collecting" comment mean?

And if an x mistake isn't just another mistake to someone, they don't understand how to use language very well.

Terrapin Station wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:Ethics are based on how society reacts to a particular behaviour. If the reaction is good, it needs to be adopted and if the reaction is bad, it needs to be discarded. Simple as that.

Gee, I sure don't agree with a mob rule/argumentum ad populum approach. I know that's what determines what's socially acceptable--that's basically a tautology, after all--but I don't agree that that is what ethics is or what it should be.

There are quite a few things where I feel the social consensus is despicable.

I agree that there are times when social consensus is despicable. And my proposal was solely addressed to how we begin to create our personal set of ethics. As we learn more we can, using our knowledge, decide to disagree with the consensus. But the fact remains that most people learn their ethics from the society they are brought up in and most agree with the consensus. Those who disagree are a minority who think outside the box.

I also wasn't talking about what ethics is or what it should be. We all have our own opinions on that. I was simply suggesting the way in which we begin to get them.

Ethics after all are just the moral principles that govern a person's behaviour. If one has an ethical principle, "a woman's place is in the kitchen", and treats the women in his home accordingly, he learned that from his society and culture. Whether it is a good ethic or a bad ethic is a different issue altogether.

The Church accepted that slavery of a certain type of people was acceptable. Today we find that behaviour abhorrent. At that time, it was a culturally acceptable practice and people who believed themselves to be highly ethical and moral probably had slaves too.

Necromancer wrote:I just say that Atheists are dangerous people because they lack the moral compass of religion that both rewards (Heaven etc.) and threatens with punishment (fear of Hell etc.).

I think your perspective is dangerous. It seems extraordinarily warped, and too self-validating to be aware of any broader clarity or love.

Necromancer wrote:Aren't Atheists more likely to torture other people out of sheer pleasure? Aren't Atheists dangerous people?

No. THEISTS have demonstrated such a thing all throughout history, though! Probably because they have such warped ideas about everyone other than themselves, and they have appointed themselves as warriors of a god's army, to deliver judgement and punishment to transform the world into their own image -- and this self-righteous mission is so intoxicating and self-pleasuring, that they actually are fulfilled by the destruction and devastation they cause.

sthitapragya wrote:But the fact remains that most people learn their ethics from the society they are brought up in and most agree with the consensus. Those who disagree are a minority who think outside the box . . . I also wasn't talking about what ethics is or what it should be.

It seems to me that saying that "most people learn their ethics from the society they are brought up in" is a statement about what ethics is.

At any rate, I don't agree with that. I think that ethics are individual in origin, but cultures influence them or at least influence what individuals express regarding their ethics. Influence is different than transmission. The origin is the individual's mind. The social influence just "pushes" that in particular ways, so to speak. Part of the reason for this is that meaning only obtains in individuals' minds, but getting into that would be getting into a big tangent.

Terrapin Station wrote:What the heck does the "stamp collecting" comment mean?

And if an x mistake isn't just another mistake to someone, they don't understand how to use language very well.

"Stamp collecting" is an example of a sparetime (life-)interest. Other could be collector of buttons, special toys, cars, guns... you know... anything leisurely without a God in it. An example to show how the Atheist is placed beside the (Secular etc.) Humanists and religious people, normally, moderately and by 21st Century practice.

Just as much as religion is an interest to some, with conscience/Commandments/Golden Rule to go.

Necromancer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:What the heck does the "stamp collecting" comment mean?

And if an x mistake isn't just another mistake to someone, they don't understand how to use language very well.

"Stamp collecting" is an example of a sparetime (life-)interest. Other could be collector of buttons, special toys, cars, guns... you know... anything leisurely without a God in it. An example to show how the Atheist is placed beside the (Secular etc.) Humanists and religious people, normally, moderately and by 21st Century practice.

Just as much as religion is an interest to some, with conscience/Commandments/Golden Rule to go.

This borders somewhere between completely irrelevant to mind numbingly ridiculous.

Necromancer wrote: "Stamp collecting" is an example of a sparetime (life-)interest. Other could be collector of buttons, special toys, cars, guns... you know... anything leisurely without a God in it.

I would say that this is basically incorrect. Most religious people I know, or know of, do not compartmentalize their lives to the point where there are activities where God is not included. To many, religion is a life style where God is included in all aspects of life. Perhaps you are thinking of the "Sunday Christian" who goes to church on Sunday to be seen, and then lives the rest of the week as if they don't know anything about religion.

Necromancer wrote:"Stamp collecting" is an example of a sparetime (life-)interest. Other could be collector of buttons, special toys, cars, guns... you know... anything leisurely without a God in it.

What does it have to do with ethics though?

Terrapin Station wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:But the fact remains that most people learn their ethics from the society they are brought up in and most agree with the consensus. Those who disagree are a minority who think outside the box . . . I also wasn't talking about what ethics is or what it should be.

It seems to me that saying that "most people learn their ethics from the society they are brought up in" is a statement about what ethics is.

At any rate, I don't agree with that. I think that ethics are individual in origin, but cultures influence them or at least influence what individuals express regarding their ethics. Influence is different than transmission. The origin is the individual's mind. The social influence just "pushes" that in particular ways, so to speak. Part of the reason for this is that meaning only obtains in individuals' minds, but getting into that would be getting into a big tangent.

I think you might be right. I was thinking from the point of view of siblings in the same family, raised in the same environment, coming up with completely different sets of ethics. My stand does not answer that question. Let me think about this for some time. But I admit, you might be right and I might be wrong on this issue.