If morality comes from a judging God, how does a religious person determine how God will judge? How does morality emerge from the supernatural realm?
Again I only state this because the religions are always telling people to do the right thing yet they turn around and do whatever it is they want to against the laws of man.
No one has answered the question.
Sam; all anybody needs or follows is the golden rule, we are social animals first and foremost.
We would be extinct now if it wasn't for that golden rule, religion played no part in it.
How many utilitarian atheists are there at sciforums? It's a question for utilitarians, not necessarily a question for atheists.
Whats the basis for religious morality? Is it simply the threat of a judging God? What if His morality isn't predictable? How does anyone know what this God wants? If someone says they know, how do you know you can trust them?
So what do nonutilitarian atheists believe? Is there good and bad? Right and wrong? Whats the basis for their beliefs?
I can't speak for each and every atheist but I can tell you that at the very least, there are Kantian atheists out there who definitely reject utilitarianism. That itself is enough to demonstrate your OP is based on a false premise.
Start your own thread. :grumble:
yes and chimps, gorillas, wolves, sheep, cattle, etc... So what.Ants are social animals too. So are bees.
There is what you feel is right for you within the Golden rule and what doesn't feel right for you within that Golden rule. Good and evil are religious concepts.So what do non-utilitarian atheists believe? Is there good and bad? Right and wrong? Whats the basis for their beliefs?
What? I thought we were having a discussion re: the difference between religious and atheist morality.
yThere is what you feel is right for you within the Golden rule and what doesn't feel right for you within that Golden rule. Good and evil are religious concepts.
If morality comes from a judging God, how does a religious person determine how God will judge? How does morality emerge from the supernatural realm?
Kant says motives are controlled by reason. So, by reason, is there good or bad?
Yes, feeling right or doing right, "Do only to others, what you would wish them to do to you".Ah so "feeling right" in this "golden rule" is the arbitrary definition of your morality?
Your own innate survival instincts.What is the source of this golden rule?
Nope, I am asking a specific question. See the OP.
judgement is the consequence of your actions according to law. it's science.
Your basic assumption that morality in the absense of religion deals only with personal goals is incorrect. It can certainly deal with what is beneficial for society, the ecosystem, the world at large, family, tribe. First you have to show that these concerns can only be addressed with religious ideas.
By reason, Kant doesn't mean subjective reason. He means something passing his three formulas (Universal Law, End in Itself, Autonomy). You run an action through those formulas and if the action passes with no contradiction, then it is considered to be a categorical imperative, something which is good in and of itself. These are things that should be followed at all costs. That is where a Kantian atheist would get "goodness" from and everything that deviates from that, by perhaps running into a contradiction in the Universal Law formula, can be considered to be less good, bad, etc.
EDIT: But this is stuff I'm remembering from Philo 101, so it's a very rough explanation of Kantian morality. A true Kantian philosopher would be able to give you a much better answer.
Sounds like a load of gibberish. What is the evidence for a moral argument?