Philosophy Now Forum

As the bible itself says: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12
No list of laws can cover every conceivable moral situation, therefore morality is subject to an individual's discretion in some instances, at the very least. In other words: artisticsolution is right and Immanuel Can is wrong. (Consequentialism craps on deontology, if you want to get technical.)

uwot wrote: In other words: artisticsolution is right and Immanuel Can is wrong.

So there! Neener neener neeeee ner!

uwot wrote:As the bible itself says: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12
No list of laws can cover every conceivable moral situation, therefore morality is subject to an individual's discretion in some instances, at the very least. In other words: artisticsolution is right and Immanuel Can is wrong. (Consequentialism craps on deontology, if you want to get technical.)

LOL...okay, good! I like the title of this thread! I am sure there are at least some atheists who do wrong. How do they know, as IC puts it. Personally, I think I we know right from wrong from looking at another who as wronged us and feeling the need to punish them for their transgressions. Of course that would cause us to internalize those same feelings for our wrong doings, as we are social beings who want to please in order to get laid...uh...er...rather...(close your eyes dalek) ...propagate the species.

artisticsolution wrote:

uwot wrote:As the bible itself says: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12
No list of laws can cover every conceivable moral situation, therefore morality is subject to an individual's discretion in some instances, at the very least. In other words: artisticsolution is right and Immanuel Can is wrong. (Consequentialism craps on deontology, if you want to get technical.)

LOL...okay, good! I like the title of this thread! I am sure there are at least some atheists who do wrong. How do they know, as IC puts it. Personally, I think I we know right from wrong from looking at another who as wronged us and feeling the need to punish them for their transgressions. Of course that would cause us to internalize those same feelings for our wrong doings, as we are social beings who want to please in order to get laid...uh...er...rather...(close your eyes dalek) ...propagate the species.

Ah shit, I should have listened! Lol!

Immanuel Can wrote:Wait a minute: you say that Atheists evoke a Christian standard? That's bizarre. Why would they invoke the Golden Rule of Jesus Christ, given that they don't believe what He said?

Well it's not "the Golden Rule of Jesus Christ". As it says in this Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule wrote: Simon Blackburn also states that the Golden Rule can be "found in some form in almost every ethical tradition"

The idea that it is an exclusively Christian standard is demonstrably false, because there are versions that are centuries, even millennia, older than Jesus Christ himself.
You also clearly do not understand what atheists believe; it is not that everything attributed to Jesus is untrue, rather it is that the claim that Jesus is 'the son of god' has a plausibility somewhere between nil and not much.

Immanuel Can wrote:And what would lead them to believe anyone else ought to believe what they themselves refuse to accept as authoritative? That's just self-contradictory. They've no association with the Golden Rule. And they've no answer as to why we are duty-bound to obey it.

Duty has little or no role in ethics. If one simply does their duty, they are a negligible moral agent, because they have at best made one moral decision; ie It is moral to do ones duty.

Immanuel Can wrote:"The outcome of the agent" is also obviously inadequate: because it is entirely indistinguishable from amoralism or egocentricity.

You have put quotation marks around something I did not say.

Immanuel Can wrote:What makes it a "moral" view at all, and why should anybody who doubts it think it's right? That's the problem.

What I said was: "the morality of an action is provisional according to the intended outcome of the agent." It is the intention to minimise distress or suffering, or spread joy and happiness, if you wish, that is dependent on a human beings ability to empathise with another one. Some people cannot do this, they're called psychopaths and are a problem for everyone.

My grandmother raised seven children (three of them her own) and therefore a lot of grandchildren spent part of their summer holidays at her farm. Whenever a child was aggressive or mean to a sibling, cousin or animal, Grandmother would take them aside and gently ask them, "How would you feel if I treated you that way?". Then she would leave them alone for a while to think over, and ask them again. That's it - no humiliation, no punishment. We behaved pretty well. When we needed advice what to do in a dilemma, Grandmother was the one we'd go to for advice. She would ask us the right questions to guide us to the decision we already knew was right.

Every good grandmother and grandfather since the beginning of humanity has done this. When the grandparents died and people missed their wise counsel, the people used to come to the grandparents' grave for advice and ask themselves the right questions. That's the origin of gods.

Assuming you believe that god is good, of course. I'm not so certain of this.

Dalek Prime wrote:Assuming you believe that god is good, of course. I'm not so certain of this.

Surely that depends on who invents and thus defines the god. It's true that most of the gods which have been invented throughout history have been evil-hearted villains but it's a bit unfair to hold them personally responsible for this. In these days of ideological correctness would you pick on a leprechaun for being vertically challenged?

Obvious Leo wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Assuming you believe that god is good, of course. I'm not so certain of this.

Surely that depends on who invents and thus defines the god. It's true that most of the gods which have been invented throughout history have been evil-hearted villains but it's a bit unfair to hold them personally responsible for this. In these days of ideological correctness would you pick on a leprechaun for being vertically challenged?

Why would it be unfair to hold a god responsible? If that's true, I refuse responsibility as a lesser being for anything that I do. I'm certainly no god.

Anyways, it's my god, and my rules lol!

Take care of yourself Leo. Cheers.

Dalek Prime wrote: Why would it be unfair to hold a god responsible? If that's true, I refuse responsibility as a lesser being for anything that I do. I'm certainly no god.

This is the great cop-out which makes theism an inherently immoral doctrine. It transfers the burden of moral culpability for an individual's behaviour from the individual himself onto a non-existent being. Billions of human lives have been needlessly destroyed over the millennia in honour of this principle and judging by current developments in the middle east the bloodlust of the god of vengeance is not yet slaked.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Why would it be unfair to hold a god responsible? If that's true, I refuse responsibility as a lesser being for anything that I do. I'm certainly no god.

This is the great cop-out which makes theism an inherently immoral doctrine. It transfers the burden of moral culpability for an individual's behaviour from the individual himself onto a non-existent being. Billions of human lives have been needlessly destroyed over the millennia in honour of this principle and judging by current developments in the middle east the bloodlust of the god of vengeance is not yet slaked.

Man is inherently immoral, just as his gods are. Are you really expecting a different outcome for mankind, theism or no theism? You have more faith than I, pardon the pun.

Dalek Prime wrote: Man is inherently immoral,

This has not been my experience, Dalek, and I'm an old fart who's been around a bit. I reckon the default setting for human behaviour is inherently moral and the cases in which it is otherwise are aberrations.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Man is inherently immoral,

This has not been my experience, Dalek, and I'm an old fart who's been around a bit. I reckon the default setting for human behaviour is inherently moral and the cases in which it is otherwise are aberrations.

If man is inherently moral, he does a good job at hiding it. He blinkers himself to the shit all around him, as long as he doesn't have to step in it himself.

I may be only 51 Leo, but I've seen enough for a lifetime.

uwot wrote:As the bible itself says: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12
No list of laws can cover every conceivable moral situation, therefore morality is subject to an individual's discretion in some instances, at the very least. In other words: artisticsolution is right and Immanuel Can is wrong. (Consequentialism craps on deontology, if you want to get technical.)

uwot, thanks for starting a thread which enables further discussion of points raised in:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=16103

One of the last things I mentioned, on AS's thread,was my rejection of the concept of 'sin'. Also, I asked AS what her understanding of it was.
My wish is to discuss ways of changing from religious vocabulary - with its continually running and possibly destructive mental commentary - to a healthier - more positive - option.

It is about handling transition from religious indoctrination to whatever philosophy the self creates. Perhaps the idea of 'sin' is useful to keep in one's head - but I think not; especially when it relates to other religious concepts such as hell as a punishment.

So, I guess what I'm asking here is: what philosophy - or way of thinking - would more usefully replace such terms?

uwot wrote:...rather it is that the claim that Jesus is 'the son of god' has a plausibility somewhere between nil and not much.

What you talkin bout willis - i mean uwot? Care to expand?

Of course to an atheist the likelihood of God existing in the first place is about the same..