Are we (The United States) a Rogue State?

[Impenitent]

C'mon guys: prove me wrong. Show that an Atheist owes it to follow a single moral precept. Go ahead.

ethical egoism

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

C'mon guys: prove me wrong. Show that an Atheist owes it to follow a single moral precept. Go ahead.

ethical egoism

-Imp

Not even that much. I'm sure a great many Atheists are also egoists; but can we prove that every Atheist is morally obligated to be an egoist? It looks purely optional, to me. Why can't an Atheist be a Utilitarian or a Pragmatist, for example. Have not some chosen that, instead? What about Mill or James? Or what about Marx, Rand or Nietzsche? How about an outright Nihilist?

The deep fact is that Moral Nihilism is actually the essence of Atheism itself. An Atheist isn't morally obligated to be anything at all. He has no moral obligations...or so he hopes.

But what if he does, but isn't actually meeting any of his moral obligations? What if pretending moral obligations don't exist isn't an effective way of getting rid of moral obligations? Has he considered that? Or is that too disturbing to his comforting indifference?

[Impenitent]

the moral standard one chooses is just that- a choice

obliged to follow is a different proposition entirely...

you are obliged to follow the moral standard set by Mars, the God of war

go ahead, deny it, fight for your "other" obligation ...

-Imp

[phyllo]

What does it mean to be obligated to follow the moral standard?

Apparently one has the free-will not to follow it.

[Walker]

"Rogue" means going against international laws and the agreements of the community of nations.

The misleading language of ‘international law’
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... l_law.html

However, this framing is misleading because it presupposes the existence of a comprehensive global legal system. In reality, there is no world legislature, no global police force, and no universally binding court with compulsory jurisdiction over sovereign nations. The term “international law” refers to a collection of treaties, agreements, understandings, and norms. Many of these were established in 1945 in a context that differs significantly from today.

The Charter does not give clear answers. As a result, powerful states—including the United States, Russia, China, Israel, and Iran—justify their actions with their own interpretations of self-defense. Other states, often motivated by politics, accuse them of violating “international law.” This ambiguity is an intrinsic feature of the current system.

[Walker]

Re: "Community of Nations"
(the arbiters of rogue)

UN Watch
https://chrissmith.house.gov/uploadedfi ... _neuer.pdf
"Introduction If an alien from another planet visited the United Nations and listened to its debates, read its resolutions, and walked its halls, it could logically conclude that a principal purpose of the world body is to censure a tiny country called Israel."

[Immanuel Can]

the moral standard one chooses is just that- a choice

So one can simply choose to be Hitler, and it's no "better" than being Florence NIghtingale?

obliged to follow is a different proposition entirely...

The "obligation" comes only when something is objectively moral. And it comes from the desire to be good person, or do the right thing, rather than the desire to be a bad one, or do the wrong thing. Some people want to do the wrong thing: that doesn't mean they aren't morally obligated to do differently; it's just that they're refusing their obligation.

But Atheism holds that NOTHING is objectively moral. So there are no obligations.

[Immanuel Can]

What does it mean to be obligated to follow the moral standard?

"Obligated" is different from "forced." One is obligated to do the right thing, but one can refuse one's obligation. That doesn't mean that it wasn't the right thing to do (objectively): it just means one refused to do it.

Apparently one has the free-will not to follow it.

Exactly so. And one also has the consequences of one's choice to inherit. Ultimately, there are no 'free' bad decisions: one always pays the price, sooner or later, for refusing one's moral obligations.

[Walker]

C'mon guys: prove me wrong. Show that an Atheist owes it to follow a single moral precept. Go ahead.

ethical egoism

-Imp

Life would have to be the measure of a moral precept, for an atheist. For example, positioning oneself upwind from prey could be made into a moral breech in a culture where survival depended on a kill. However, an atheistic primitive culture could be an oxymoron.

[Immanuel Can]

C'mon guys: prove me wrong. Show that an Atheist owes it to follow a single moral precept. Go ahead.

ethical egoism

-Imp

Life would have to be the measure of a moral precept, for an atheist. For example, positioning oneself upwind from prey could be made into a moral breech in a culture where survival depended on a kill. However, an atheistic primitive culture could be an oxymoron.

Could an Atheist show that his Atheism requires him to avoid stinking to prey? I'd like to see how the argument for that would go. I don't even think the Atheist could invent an argument that shows Atheism demands of him that he should live: after all, things die, and even go extinct, all the time. Why should he, who regards himself as a mere animal, be any different?

But hey, if he's got such an argument, I'll hear it.

[Iwannaplato]

What does it mean to be obligated to follow the moral standard?

Apparently one has the free-will not to follow it.

I'm not sure what free will is worth if the options lead to eternal joy or eternal torture. Certainly, though, you can make a lot of small decisions with your free will: Let's have Edgecromb Gray Paint in the hallway, dear. Though how this relates to the USA as a rogue state, I don't know. Is someone suggesting countries have free will?

[phyllo]

What does it mean to be obligated to follow the moral standard?

Apparently one has the free-will not to follow it.

I'm not sure what free will is worth if the options lead to eternal joy or eternal torture. Certainly, though, you can make a lot of small decisions with your free will: Let's have Edgecromb Gray Paint in the hallway, dear. Though how this relates to the USA as a rogue state, I don't know. Is someone suggesting countries have free will?

My post was prompted my repeated statements like this :

An Atheist isn't morally obligated to be anything at all. He has no moral obligations...or so he hopes.

But what if he does, but isn't actually meeting any of his moral obligations? What if pretending moral obligations don't exist isn't an effective way of getting rid of moral obligations? Has he considered that? Or is that too disturbing to his comforting indifference?

The fact is that nobody is obligated to do anything.

Neither gods nor a moral code' that supposedly comes from the gods, prevents you from acting in any way that you wish.

I see no advantage of a 'divine'(?) moral code over a secular moral code.

I see no reason to comply to a 'divine' moral code if it makes no sense.

Furthermore, if you are dealing with parties who come from various religious beliefs or no religious beliefs, then you will have to make agreements and laws which satisfy them all. These would be secular agreements.

[phyllo]

"Rogue" means going against international laws and the agreements of the community of nations.

The misleading language of ‘international law’
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... l_law.html

However, this framing is misleading because it presupposes the existence of a comprehensive global legal system. In reality, there is no world legislature, no global police force, and no universally binding court with compulsory jurisdiction over sovereign nations. The term “international law” refers to a collection of treaties, agreements, understandings, and norms. Many of these were established in 1945 in a context that differs significantly from today.

The Charter does not give clear answers. As a result, powerful states—including the United States, Russia, China, Israel, and Iran—justify their actions with their own interpretations of self-defense. Other states, often motivated by politics, accuse them of violating “international law.” This ambiguity is an intrinsic feature of the current system.

You have an alternative to international laws and agreements other than might makes right, dog eat dog. Right?

[Wizard22]

You cannot "go rogue" when you are the Leader. That doesn't even make sense.

Are we defying European expectations and their delusional innocent mindset? Yes, Trump is doing what none thought possible.

[Walker]

"justify their actions with their own interpretations of self-defense."

The justification is for themselves, Great Satan.