The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2026 12:51 am**

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 12:42 am ...atheists can have no basis for morality OR people of religions other than his own (since their their morality is being dictated by a false god or gods)

Actually, you've got that wrong. A false religion WOULD have a basis for an ethics, though it would most probably issue in an objectively incorrect ethics. But Atheism would not have ANY basis, even if the Atheist did accidentally happen to land upon the objectively right ethics.

So an Islamist has a basis in his own belief system logically to reason that he should kill infidels, even though killing infidels is objectively morally wrong. Likewise, a Hindu who believes in caste has a basis in his own worldview to conclude for logical reasons that caste is necessary, even though caste is objectively unjust and immoral. Both are at least behaving rationally, though with wrong moral conclusions. But an Atheist who was a humanitarian would still have no rational basis in Atheism for insisting that people ought to be humanitarians. And if he's not a humanitarian, there's nothing in Atheism that tells him it's bad not to be a humanitarian, either.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2026 2:19 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 9:44 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 9:05 pm I don't need to be a Christian to turn the other cheek.
Perhaps not. But you do have to be a Christian to know the reason why you ought to turn the other cheek. Atheism does not tell us that's a thing we ought to do. Nor do other religions, actually.

I know the reason I turn the other cheek. I turn the other cheek to keep peace with others as much as possible. I don't need to be a Christian to know that turning the other cheek gives me a better chance at keeping peace with others. I don't relish turmoil and trouble. We all make mistakes, and sometimes it's better to let bygones be bygones.

I was picked on by the other kids when I was young. Most of us are. But I dropped out of socializing with my peers for the most part because of it, that, and I had ugly nervous habits. I have put that all behind me and forgiven all those who picked on me, not because I think God demands it of me but because I was no better and it gives me peace to reconcile with others over my past torments. Holding a grudge just gets tiring and is more trouble than it's worth. Plus, I still like the people I grew up with, warts and all. That's just common sense. I don't understand why you don't understand that people can be kind and empathetic just using common sense. Why is that so difficult for you to understand why others behave morally even if they are not Christians?

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2026 3:22 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 2:19 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 9:44 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 9:05 pm I don't need to be a Christian to turn the other cheek.
Perhaps not. But you do have to be a Christian to know the reason why you ought to turn the other cheek. Atheism does not tell us that's a thing we ought to do. Nor do other religions, actually.
I know the reason I turn the other cheek. I turn the other cheek to keep peace with others as much as possible.

Hmmm...well, that's not a moral decision, but rather merely a pragmatic one. You're saying you do it because you believe that will work out best for you strategically, not because it's right in any ultimate sense. Morality is really about what you do regardless of how you think it will work out for you.

I don't need to be a Christian to know that turning the other cheek gives me a better chance at keeping peace with others. I don't relish turmoil and trouble. We all make mistakes, and sometimes it's better to let bygones be bygones.

I'm not saying that this is you...but the same decision could be made from cowardice.

Holding a grudge just gets tiring and is more trouble than it's worth.

That much is true.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand why others behave morally even if they are not Christians?

You're not getting my point. I'm not saying a secularist can't, for his own reasons, decide to do the right thing. I'm saying he has no way of knowing it IS actually the right thing (morally) and that, given his secularism, he has no particular reason not to do the very opposite if he finds it strategically and pragmatically to his advantage. His Atheism will not tell him it's wrong to hurt people, or to steal, or to do anything, if it seems opportune to him to do those things. But it doesn't mean those are the only things he can choose to do.

So he may do 'good' things -- things other worldviews hold to be good, that is. And he may not. His secularism will give him no particular basis on which to think either is "right" or "wrong." He will, to borrow a phrase from secularist philosopher Joseph Margolis, simply live "without principles" of any kind, because he will think there are no such things as moral principles.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2026 4:34 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 3:22 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 2:19 am Holding a grudge just gets tiring and is more trouble than it's worth.
That much is true.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand why others behave morally even if they are not Christians?
You're not getting my point. I'm not saying a secularist can't, for his own reasons, decide to do the right thing. I'm saying he has no way of knowing it IS actually the right thing (morally) and that, given his secularism, he has no particular reason not to do the very opposite if he finds it strategically and pragmatically to his advantage. His Atheism will not tell him it's wrong to hurt people, or to steal, or to do anything, if it seems opportune to him to do those things. But it doesn't mean those are the only things he can choose to do.

And yet atheists do know it's moral. So do people around the world from various other religions. Clearly Chrsit didn't impart moral sense to everyone around the world. People know it already, and we do it because it makes sense to do. Why else would someone do something without being part of a religious culture or part of a different religious culture?

You are seriously deficient in intelligence or something if you can't figure that much out. Would you go around screwing people over if you couldn't without repercussions? Some people do but they end up pariahs and pariahs often create socialy mal adapted children when they do successfully find a mate. In the end society will not tolerate a problem individual.

Honestly, you sound a little derranged toward atheists. You don't seem to think very highly of them.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2026 4:38 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 12:32 am
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:39 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:36 pm
Prove conscience is "authoritative" for Atheists.
Prove it isn't!
Easy. There's nothing in Atheism that contains any demand like, "Thou shalt obey thy conscience." So no Atheist has to follow what he feels in his conscience...unless you can prove otherwise.

So, as you explicitly state, you need to be commanded to have a conscience. You require a menu of morals supervised by scripture to be moral. I guess in some way that's good since there are people incapable of figuring it out themselves or seek to be responsible for their own moral maxims.

But even without the bible, secular society would teach you soon enough to have one. It wouldn't be optional.

The way you write about morals it's easy to conclude that without the bible you wouldn't have any if society at large didn't enforce it.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2026 12:38 pm**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 4:34 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 3:22 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 2:19 am Holding a grudge just gets tiring and is more trouble than it's worth.
That much is true.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand why others behave morally even if they are not Christians?
You're not getting my point. I'm not saying a secularist can't, for his own reasons, decide to do the right thing. I'm saying he has no way of knowing it IS actually the right thing (morally) and that, given his secularism, he has no particular reason not to do the very opposite if he finds it strategically and pragmatically to his advantage. His Atheism will not tell him it's wrong to hurt people, or to steal, or to do anything, if it seems opportune to him to do those things. But it doesn't mean those are the only things he can choose to do.
And yet atheists do know it's moral.

Yes. But they do not know why. And they do not know how it's possible for us to have a conscience, since they suppose it must refer to no objective truth.

Clearly Chrsit didn't impart moral sense to everyone around the world.

Why is that "clear"? On the contrary, conscience seems to have been baked into creation itself -- God wanted every person to be able to know the truth about morality...even if, like Atheists, they deny any grounds for it.

Why else would someone do something without being part of a religious culture or part of a different religious culture?

Because objective morality may be reinforced by the teachings of a culture, but it does not originate in culture. It originates in creation. Creation is inherently morally-coded. So morality is above all culture.

Honestly, you sound a little derranged toward atheists. You don't seem to think very highly of them.

Actually, I find them quite interesting...in the sort of way one finds odd things interesting. I'm intrigued by the paradoxes within which they try to live, and I note that they're really not very good at living that way. C.S. Lewis, who was himself an Atheist before his conversion to Christianity, reflected that "at that time in my life (i.e. his Atheist period) I was living in a whirl of contradictions." Nothing more true could be said about that.

I have a lot of sympathy for Atheists, actually. I see them as suffering people, deprived of the knowledge of God, trying to make their way through a world that is, in many ways, very difficult and oppositional to them, but without the explanations necessary to make good sense of it. That's got to be quite frustrating. No wonder they're so often angry. Maybe I would be too, if I were them. But I'd also like to point them to something better. And that starts with them realizing exactly how confused their present situation really is.

If pointing that out sounds unkind, well, that's a price we have to pay for telling them the truth. But the truth is the beginning of a better way, so it's worth it.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2026 12:42 pm**

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 4:38 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 12:32 am
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:39 pm

Prove it isn't!
Easy. There's nothing in Atheism that contains any demand like, "Thou shalt obey thy conscience." So no Atheist has to follow what he feels in his conscience...unless you can prove otherwise.
So, as you explicitly state, you need to be commanded to have a conscience.

No, I didn't say that, actually. You inferred it, but not accurately.

You have a conscience. And when you hear moral truth, your conscience is that faculty that reminds you that's what you're hearing. And when you think of a command like the above, does anything in that conscience make you think you're hearing the truth?

What an Atheist really needs is a basis -- he needs to be able to say to himself WHY he thinks he's duty-bound to his own conscience. And Atheism itself does not contain any reason for him to believe he is duty-bound to anything.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2026 2:05 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 12:42 pm
Dubious wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 4:38 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 12:32 am
Easy. There's nothing in Atheism that contains any demand like, "Thou shalt obey thy conscience." So no Atheist has to follow what he feels in his conscience...unless you can prove otherwise.
So, as you explicitly state, you need to be commanded to have a conscience.
No, I didn't say that, actually. You inferred it, but not accurately.

You have a conscience. And when you hear moral truth, your conscience is that faculty that reminds you that's what you're hearing. And when you think of a command like the above, does anything in that conscience make you think you're hearing the truth?

What an Atheist really needs is a basis -- he needs to be able to say to himself WHY he thinks he's duty-bound to his own conscience. And Atheism itself does not contain any reason for him to believe he is duty-bound to anything.

So "because God says so" is the only adequate "basis" for morality? If God doesn't say so, then we can do whatever we want without consequences. Is that correct? Consequences (if we don't act morally) cannot serve as the reason (the why) we do moral things?

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2026 2:22 pm**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 2:05 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 12:42 pm
Dubious wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 4:38 am

So, as you explicitly state, you need to be commanded to have a conscience.
No, I didn't say that, actually. You inferred it, but not accurately.

You have a conscience. And when you hear moral truth, your conscience is that faculty that reminds you that's what you're hearing. And when you think of a command like the above, does anything in that conscience make you think you're hearing the truth?

What an Atheist really needs is a basis -- he needs to be able to say to himself WHY he thinks he's duty-bound to his own conscience. And Atheism itself does not contain any reason for him to believe he is duty-bound to anything.
So "because God says so" is the only adequate "basis" for morality? If God doesn't say so, then we can do whatever we want without consequences. Is that correct? Consequences (if we don't act morally) cannot serve as the reason (the why) we do moral things?

Consequences for doing wrong are exactly what God promises to deliver: "The wages of sin is death." And again, "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows, that he shall also reap."

Our world cries out for justice today -- as do you, from time to time...justice is going to come. But consequences are not always instant. Sometimes they come from afar. Yet, when they arrive, they have only left more time for the sentence to compound. God never gets that wrong.

The fact that justice is delayed means two things: one, that although consequences come, people can choose to pretend they won't; two, that God is very patient, "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Again, "See the kindness and severity of God."

Because consequences are delayed, man has time for both sin and repentance, whichever he chooses. Consequences, then, cannot by themselves motivate good behaviour; it's too easy for people to pretend they'll never come. It works in the interaction between humans, where immediate power is more functional. If you think you'll get hurt for what you do, or you'll get a reward for doing good, you'll probably do it; but that's what human beings do to each other, and that's the cultural-social element of moral governance. The divine one takes longer.

Moral principles, if they are to be motivated, have to be motivated by faith, by love of God, and that as practiced in the present moment, when ethical actions are being chosen and taken. The prospect of judment isn't immediate enough for most people, you'll find. We're short-term thinkers.

But what is the Atheist motive for morality? It can be fear of social power, of course, of what others will do to one, or of how they will reward one for at least appearing moral. But behind that, what's the motivation for choosing principle over pragmatics, especially when to do the right thing is not going to deliver a reward, or is not going to be attended with punishment, or is even going to be penalized by a less-moral ethos?

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2026 2:29 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 2:22 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 2:05 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 12:42 pm
No, I didn't say that, actually. You inferred it, but not accurately.

You have a conscience. And when you hear moral truth, your conscience is that faculty that reminds you that's what you're hearing. And when you think of a command like the above, does anything in that conscience make you think you're hearing the truth?

What an Atheist really needs is a basis -- he needs to be able to say to himself WHY he thinks he's duty-bound to his own conscience. And Atheism itself does not contain any reason for him to believe he is duty-bound to anything.
So "because God says so" is the only adequate "basis" for morality? If God doesn't say so, then we can do whatever we want without consequences. Is that correct? Consequences (if we don't act morally) cannot serve as the reason (the why) we do moral things?
Consequences for doing wrong are exactly what God promises to deliver: "The wages of sin is death." And again, "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows, that he shall also reap."

Our world cries out for justice today -- as do you, from time to time...justice is going to come. But consequences are not always instant. Sometimes they come from afar. Yet, when they arrive, they have only left more time for the sentence to compound. God never gets that wrong.

The fact that justice is delayed means two things: one, that although consequences come, people can choose to pretend they won't; two, that God is very patient, "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Again, "See the kindness and severity of God."

Because consequences are delayed, man has time for both sin and repentance, whichever he chooses. Consequences, then, cannot by themselves motivate good behaviour; it's too easy for people to pretend they'll never come. It works in the interaction between humans, where immediate power is more functional. If you think you'll get hurt for what you do, or you'll get a reward for doing good, you'll probably do it; but that's what human beings do to each other, and that's the cultural-social element of moral governance. The divine one takes longer.

Moral principles, if they are to be motivated, have to be motivated by faith, by love of God, and that as practiced in the present moment, when ethical actions are being chosen and taken. The prospect of judment isn't immediate enough for most people, you'll find. We're short-term thinkers.

But what is the Atheist motive for morality? It can be fear of social power, of course, of what others will do to one, or of how they will reward one for at least appearing moral. But behind that, what's the motivation for choosing principle over pragmatics, especially when to do the right thing is not going to deliver a reward, or is not going to be attended with punishment, or is even going to be penalized by a less-moral ethos?

So principles cannot also be pragmatic. Is that correct?

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2026 2:38 pm**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 2:29 pm So morality cannot also be pragmatic. Is that correct?

Well, let's think it through, Gary.

Being moral is easy when whatever is right is the same as whatever is pragmatically in my interests. So, for example, you do not have to ask me any question if I win the lottery and collect my winnings. You don't have to ask, "Is it moral to collect your winnings?" Of course it is. They're mine. I won them fair and square, and it's very rewarding for me to collect them. Maybe I'll even do something good with them afterward.

So in that case, as you see, pragmatics and what is right are the same. Unless, for some reason, you imagine lotteries are inherently evil, no moral problems are evident.

However, let us suppose that instead, I have an opportunity to steal your lottery ticket, and take the millions that you have legitimately won. I'm convinced you will never know, and I will never be caught. Perhaps you don't even realize your ticket won, and you've forgotten you bought it. It's lying on the counter, right in front of me. I will get huge reward for doing it -- that's my pragmatic interest. But should I do it?

Now right and pragmatics are at huge variance. And it's in such a moment that the moral question leaps to the fore: should I steal from Gary?

The point: moral dilemmas only appear when right and pragmatics are different. Other than that, we don't even feel any need to consult morality, beyond the initial point at which we have decided there's no such variance.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2026 3:03 pm**

Pragmatic : dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

Yeah, you don't want to be sensible and realistic if you're a religious person.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2026 3:10 pm**

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 3:03 pm Pragmatic : dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

Pragmatics are useful. And they're not inherently immoral.

But moral concerns only appear when the practical considerations are potentially contrary to matters of principle, ethics or goodness. So yes, one can convince oneself that being amoral is merely being "pragmatic." But that's not all being purely pragmatic will inevitably amount to.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2026 3:56 pm**

If you want to believe in a benevolent God who created a world full of suffering and unhappiness, then by all means, do. It's the dumbest thing anyone can believe, but whatever. You may as well believe in a 4 sided triangle as believe in a benevolent God who creates a world full of suffering and unhappiness.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2026 3:59 pm**

Sensible and realistic ethics are not amoral.

Ethics is developed through human experience and it's implemented to make life in society better.

Although falling short of perfection, there is striving for gradual improvement.

The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Fabianism

Re: Fabianism

Re: Fabianism

Re: Fabianism

Re: Fabianism

Re: Fabianism

Re: Fabianism

Re: Fabianism

Re: Fabianism

Re: Fabianism

Re: Fabianism

Re: Fabianism

Re: Fabianism

Re: Fabianism

Re: Fabianism

Re: Fabianism