Equality

[aiddon]

Stick around aiddon, you'll soon discover how this forum works. It's like yer biblical plagues, one minute it's racists, the next paedophiles. Currently we have a crop of outspoken religious nutters (although they're always there or thereabouts). It would be monstrous of me to slop them all in the same bucket, but there are unpleasant aspects to some god botherers. They also use similar tactics; generally they will bang on and on about some apparently innocuous premise, which they fancy that if you concede it, they can, in Immanuel Can's terms, 'trap' you. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

I think the recent activity on this thread has been mired in lingusitic "one up-manship", which has begun to overshadow the essence of the topic. Neatly honed skills in the art of arguing can distort and even obliterate an otherwise sound proposition. I seem to remember, had developed into whether the atheist can ground his ethical stance in the absence of a Creator. Whereas it seems that Immanuel Can feels confident that he can ground his due to a belief in a Creator - "ontology precedes ethics". The implication is that ultimately an atheist cannot be strictly deemed to be ethical? It is running down blind alleys if the argument hinges on, "you cannot prove/disprove the existence of God, therefore you lose,". This may be a wild assumption to make, but as long as humanity exists on this or any other planet, conclusive evidence for the existence or non-existence of God will never be produced. So, why base any discussion on this? It is non-sensical, for example, to say I can ground my ethics because I believe in God. Well, to ground something implies a definitive, unshakeable belief. Yes, your faith may be unshakeable, but your confidence in proving there is a God cannot be, thus rendering the argument useless.

For my tuppence worth, is it not the case that to be ethical is simply a product of biology - an evolutionary device propogated genetically in the best interest of the survival of our species?

[Immanuel Can]

uwot writes:

I'm not technically an atheist, I don't insist there is no god. But while I think Wittgenstein was overstating the case by insisting 'Thereof we must remain silent', I think the logical positivists had a point by claiming that talk about gods is basically meaningless. Except when people attach their usually right-wing agenda to the tail of their god.

There is something important in that observation, namely that there are things that are simply too big to think about...comprehensively. I cannot drink the Atlantic Ocean.

But there's a distance between saying something is impossible to comprehend fully and saying it's incomprehensible. I cannot drink the Atlantic Ocean, but I can take a cupful. I can sail about on it, but never see it all, and never exhaust its totality. That does not imply that there is no Atlantic Ocean -- in fact, the vastness of the object in this case only emphasizes the genuine "thereness" of the object itself.

The more important question is, "Does God have 'thereness'?"

And I agree that we would all, all things being equal, do better to say nothing of the Supreme Being if there were nothing to be known. That would be the case if, as Henry seems to suggest, such statements were merely made up by human beings. I would add that if the Supreme Being has revealed nothing of Himself, then every person on the planet is genuinely "equal" -- but only in the sense of being equally clueless about the nature of the Supreme Being.

Yet the decisive question is perhaps this one: can the Supreme Being speak?

P.S. -- As for right-wing agendas, I will go you one further and say that *any* merely human political agenda has no business being linked with Divine sanction. The Left has no pass in that area either.

[Immanuel Can]

The implication is that ultimately an atheist cannot be strictly deemed to be ethical?

Not quite: the implication is that an atheist can be ethical, but cannot deem himself ethical by any grounded standard. On the other hand, the theist is perfectly free to deem the atheist ethical.

Let's stay away from the ad hominem, and focus on the legitimation issue: i.e. can an atheist *ground* his ethics...not "can he *be* a good person."

[aiddon]

[quote="Immanuel Can]

Not quite: the implication is that an atheist can be ethical, but cannot deem himself ethical by any grounded standard. On the other hand, the theist is perfectly free to deem the atheist ethical.

Let's stay away from the ad hominem, and focus on the legitimation issue: i.e. can an atheist *ground* his ethics...not "can he *be* a good person."[/quote]

Apologies Immanuel Can. The ad hominem was unintentional - I prefer to tackle the ball rather than the man. However, as you are arguing from the theistic perspective, it is fair to assume your contention that theists can ground their ethics is intertwined with that perspective. Nevertheless, I do not believe that it is incumbent on atheists to prove that their ethics are grounded. Most will claim that they are, but that they are employing a different reference standard. The theists grounds them with reference to God's message as outlined in the Bible (more specifically the four Gospels as these are the only vaguely historical acounts of Jesus). Grounding ethics with respect to anything else would be disingenuous for the theist. For the atheist, his/her reference is the moral code with which society develops organically according to what is acceptable for that society to function. In this sense, ethics are derived empirically - i.e. action x results in harm to society, therefore action x is unethical.

[thedoc]

"Both base their position and beliefs on faith without any empirical support for either"

I disagree.

Take, for example, my bias against the bully and the pedophile...in part: I'm repelled by both because each does what no other animal does, that is, dominate another for no reason other than he or she can.

Again: the cheetah takes down the antelope to satisfy a real hunger while the bully/pedophile merely uses another to satisfy an unimpressive, non-vital, appetite.

Certainly my rationale is *creaky but, I think, less so than 'God says that's wrong cuz all humans are ensouled, and have intrinsic right and value'.

*and easily shredded...hell, as I sit here typing, 'I' can shred my rationale...and still: even as hooey, my 'as evidenced in nature' argument holds more water than **GOD as grounding


**and -- again -- even if GOD 'is', the best that can be said: because HE has the BIGGEST stick, HE makes the rules

having the capacity to design/make/maintain Reality doesn't automatically imbue such a creature with an absolute, or even superior, moral sense

so: followers of such a creature have no real grounding beyond 'GOD says so, God has the BIG stick, what the one with the BIG stick says, goes'

I believe you have extended my statement much farther than I had intended. The limit of my statement was the Theist belief that there is a God, and the Atheist belief that there is no God. Your's and my position on bullies and Pedophiles is pretty much the same, and I agree that neither can justify their appetites naturally or ethically.

[thedoc]

[quote="Immanuel Can]

Not quite: the implication is that an atheist can be ethical, but cannot deem himself ethical by any grounded standard. On the other hand, the theist is perfectly free to deem the atheist ethical.

Let's stay away from the ad hominem, and focus on the legitimation issue: i.e. can an atheist *ground* his ethics...not "can he *be* a good person."

Apologies Immanuel Can. The ad hominem was unintentional - I prefer to tackle the ball rather than the man. However, as you are arguing from the theistic perspective, it is fair to assume your contention that theists can ground their ethics is intertwined with that perspective. Nevertheless, I do not believe that it is incumbent on atheists to prove that their ethics are grounded. Most will claim that they are, but that they are employing a different reference standard. The theists grounds them with reference to God's message as outlined in the Bible (more specifically the four Gospels as these are the only vaguely historical acounts of Jesus). Grounding ethics with respect to anything else would be disingenuous for the theist. For the atheist, his/her reference is the moral code with which society develops organically according to what is acceptable for that society to function. In this sense, ethics are derived empirically - i.e. action x results in harm to society, therefore action x is unethical.[/quote][/quote]

If I understand this correctly the discussion is about a 'Grounded Ethics' which could also be expressed as a 'Baseline Ethics', that can be applied to all situations. This goes back some time ago to a rather heated discussion about Ethics, where I said that all ethics are Situational and the other person adamantly disagreed. He then used the example of an ambulance crew going out on a call and stated that there is a set protocol when entering under these conditions, and with that I would agree, but the protocols are not unconditional. The situation is preset in that they know that there is some medical emergency that must be dealt with in a set manner. An ambulance crew would not enter just any house and exercise these protocols. So the question comes back to "is there an ethic that applies to every situation" independent of Theism or Atheism?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Lil Jimmy Sparkles is born smart, beautiful, and healthy.

Lil Johnny Shit is born dumb, ugly, and sickly.

From the start: demonstrably there is no *equality.

'nuff said.









*pretending equality exists don't make it so (though, you should feel free to pretend whatever you like)

Then something goes around and kills only the "smart, beautiful, and healthy" leaving the "dumb, ugly, and sickly" to survive. So I guess I understand your point, but do you understand mine?

"Inequality is born of the sickly minds that are only capable of seeing things their way."

[Ginkgo]

[quote="Immanuel Can]

Not quite: the implication is that an atheist can be ethical, but cannot deem himself ethical by any grounded standard. On the other hand, the theist is perfectly free to deem the atheist ethical.

Let's stay away from the ad hominem, and focus on the legitimation issue: i.e. can an atheist *ground* his ethics...not "can he *be* a good person."

[/quote][/quote][/quote]

I think the answer is that the atheist can definitely have a 'grounded' ethic'. Namely, grounded in human rationality.

I would also think that the answer to Doc's question is that there can be an ethic independent of atheism and theism. By this I assume Doc means ethics that is universal.

[thedoc]

I think the answer is that the atheist can definitely have a 'grounded' ethic'. Namely, grounded in human rationality.

I would also think that the answer to Doc's question is that there can be an ethic independent of atheism and theism. By this I assume Doc means ethics that is universal.

The labels I mentioned could easily be translated as a 'Universal Ethic', and I also think that human rationality is a good place to start. The problem might be similar to that one of Douglas Adams in the answer to 'Life, the Universe and Everything' as being 42, but exactly what is the question? So stating that there is a 'Universal Ethic' is one thing, but exactly what is it.

[Immanuel Can]

If I understand this correctly the discussion is about a 'Grounded Ethics' which could also be expressed as a 'Baseline Ethics', that can be applied to all situations.

No, actually. "Baseline" as you use it seems to imply "related to ultimate truth as a baseline." "Grounded" merely refers to the "grounds" provided by one's own worldview, regardless of what that worldview might be.

The fact of "groundedness" does not yet imply "true": I could have a false set of ethics which is nevertheless well-grounded in my false worldview. So, for example, though I am not a Hindu I could celebrate the consistency of a Hindu for practicing the logical ethical consequences of his Hindu worldview. Likewise, I could celebrate Henry's consistency for his willingness to see the full logical implications of his worldview and his willingness to deny equality --even though I personally believe in equality. For I am only trying to estimate his consistency with his own belief, not his conformity to mine. It's lack of consistency *with itself* that is the first sign of a rationally incoherent position.

We don't even need to enter into the truth question as yet.

As for situations, we all know they change. That information does not add much light to the present issue, though it becomes relevant once an ethic is chosen.

The real question is, "Are atheism's 'ethics' grounded in anything, or does one have to become inconsistent with its worldview to behave 'ethically' at all?" For the moment, let's keep the truth or falsehood of atheism to one side. It will be enough if we can see that atheism and naturalism cannot be consistent with ethics of any kind -- just as Henry freely admits.

[Immanuel Can]

I think the answer is that the atheist can definitely have a 'grounded' ethic'. Namely, grounded in human rationality.

Well, then, it should be easy to show precisely *how* it is grounded. Let's start with a premise like...

1 -- Humans are rational beings.
2 -- Rationality teaches....? (say what and how this thing is taught)
3 -- Therefore, all humans should do X.

If you find my syllogism unhelpful, feel free to construct your own. I only suggest something like it; I don't insist it's the only one you could do. Just show us the reasoning that necessarily connects term A (human rationality) to term X (a moral action). Do it any way you please.

Easy peasy?

Go ahead.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I think the answer is that the atheist can definitely have a 'grounded' ethic'. Namely, grounded in human rationality.

Well, then, it should be easy to show precisely *how* it is grounded. Let's start with a premise like...

1 -- Humans are rational beings.
2 -- Rationality teaches....? (say what and how this thing is taught)
3 -- Therefore, all humans should do X.

If you find my syllogism unhelpful, feel free to construct your own. I only suggest something like it; I don't insist it's the only one you could do. Just show us the reasoning that necessarily connects term A (human rationality) to term X (a moral action). Do it any way you please.

Easy peasy?

Go ahead.

1 Humans are emotional beings. They are also motivated by their passions, needs, wants and beliefs.
2 As Kant says, human perception is bias by experience, thus rationality can teach x, y, and z. ALl being contingent on social, environmental and cultural factors.
3. Therefore humans do as humans do.

Your "syllogism" is a complete non sequitur, even if the premises were correct, which they are not.

You are not even wrong.

[thedoc]

I think the answer is that the atheist can definitely have a 'grounded' ethic'. Namely, grounded in human rationality.

Well, then, it should be easy to show precisely *how* it is grounded. Let's start with a premise like...

1 -- Humans are rational beings.
2 -- Rationality teaches....? (say what and how this thing is taught)
3 -- Therefore, all humans should do X.

If you find my syllogism unhelpful, feel free to construct your own. I only suggest something like it; I don't insist it's the only one you could do. Just show us the reasoning that necessarily connects term A (human rationality) to term X (a moral action). Do it any way you please.
Easy peasy?
Go ahead.

Well I have an issue with premise #1, I do not see all, or even most humans as being rational, and I would include logical in that assessment. It has been my experience that most people do not see what is in front of them, and even on forums like this, it can be seen that people do not read what is written, but read what they expect or what they want to read. How are people going to be rational about the world as it is, if they don't see the world as it is? You have people making fantasy assessments about a fantasy world. Sorry if I sound pessimistic but I have directly experienced people who, only a short time after the event, have related a totally fictional account of the events in question. My confidence in human perception is very low, and I see perception of reality as the key to a rational interpretation of reality.

[uwot]

The real question is, "Are atheism's 'ethics' grounded in anything,

It is I suspect a meaningless question. If you ever get round to making your point, it would be a surprise to discover that it isn't simply that christian ethics are 'grounded', because they are commensurate with the stories of the bible. That, or more glibly, because god exists. That being so, any definition of 'ethics' that doesn't appeal to the authority of god, isn't in your terms ethics. Until you prove your ontological claim, all you have is a definition of ethics, which in the spirit of the thread makes us equal. If you've got anything else, let's hear it.

or does one have to become inconsistent with its worldview to behave 'ethically' at all?"

This is just drivel. If you wish to insist that non-christians are inconsistent for describing anything they do in ethical terms, that is only because you choose to define ethics as 'sanctioned by god'.

For the moment, let's keep the truth or falsehood of atheism to one side. It will be enough if we can see that atheism and naturalism cannot be consistent with ethics of any kind -- just as Henry freely admits.

You can only do that if you choose to define ethics as 'sanctioned by god'. Until you 'prove' that your god exists, you have no 'grounding' for your claims.
Get on with it.

[Ginkgo]

I think the answer is that the atheist can definitely have a 'grounded' ethic'. Namely, grounded in human rationality.

Well, then, it should be easy to show precisely *how* it is grounded. Let's start with a premise like...

1 -- Humans are rational beings.
2 -- Rationality teaches....? (say what and how this thing is taught)
3 -- Therefore, all humans should do X.

If you find my syllogism unhelpful, feel free to construct your own. I only suggest something like it; I don't insist it's the only one you could do. Just show us the reasoning that necessarily connects term A (human rationality) to term X (a moral action). Do it any way you please.

Easy peasy?

Go ahead.

Perhaps I can start with the short answer and then see where it goes from there. Kantian ethics is a priori so rationality in terms of morality teaches us that morality can have an objective necessity about it.How ethics is taught is an empirical question- it isn't a deontological question.On this basis premise 2 is not the only option available when it comes to Kantian ethics.