What moral right does an atheist have?

[wynn]

If there is something objective, it surely isnt what we humans have in mind or would want it to be.

Why not? Are we alien to this Universe?

 

[wynn]

No action in the universe can be objectively good unless the action itself exists in reference to an absolute objective standard of Good. A thing is good in relation to something. If its merely good in relation to your "tastes" or cultural myths and opinions, then it is relative and subjective and most probably a purely pragmatic inference rather than something which proceeds from the knowledge of true good. If we want to know what is good, we cannot know by simply saying that people had an agreement about something in history. That people agree in general that murder is wrong, can simply be reflective of the practical fact that people don't want to die, rather than knowledge of some supreme law.

The question then becomes "by what standard is a thing objectively good".

Well we cannot say that its somebodies opinion, because opinions change and are relative to peoples needs and wants. An objective standard of good is like a mathematical truth in the sense that it never changes. It transcends subjective opinion and practical relations between objects. An objective standard of truth is something that is always true. It is an immutable truth. This is what we mean by objective moral truth. Therefore moral law in this context is not something that begins to exist or changes according to the tide of cultural relativism.

The moral quality of a things behavior is defined as good according to an absolute standard. Since the truth of that standard cannot begin to exist, its expression as a truth has to be intrinsic to the nature of an absolute standard of reality, since it, just like the laws that underlie mathematical truth, cannot just pop out of nothing. It has to be an expression of a timeless immutable reality that never changes and never begins to exist.

In other words, good is a "nature", not just an action, and that nature is the very "act of reality" itself in which contingent beings participate. In so far as we participate in that reality, it therefore follows that an action is wrong when a persons behavior is not in conformity in some way shape or form with the intrinsic nature of that which is the "act of reality" (good), hence evil. Good by definition is an expression of love and to love is to share the good of ones being. To not share the good of ones being would be a selfish act. I am evil if i do not respect your nature, because my not respecting it is selfish in so far as it does not fulfill your nature and therefore does not conform to the existential principle we call love.

Back to your question. We can distinguish between a cultural opinion and true objective moral good, by asking what is "good" by definition. Good is that which fulfills your potentiality, your existence, and your particular teleological nature. All these must be fulfilled in so far as they exist in relation to an absolute standard of love. To not fulfill these things would therefore be selfish in so far as the act of reality is love. Thus good is that which fulfills your nature and the nature of every body else in kind. We can know if a thing is good by applying the principle of love to natures and actions.

If i punch you in your face, i am not fulfilling the good of your nature. However context can change the moral quality of an action. For example, if i have no choice but to punch you in-order to stop you from killing somebody; the greater good of saving a persons life overrides my duty to not hurt you. Punching is not a good thing by itself, but in relation to saving somebodies life it is a necessity, and you are only morally responsible in relation to things you can control. For example if you didn't have to punch the person in the face, but did so anyway because it was an opportunity to give an analogous show of power, then this would be wrong even though you did it to save somebodies life. Similarly, God permits evil because he sees a greater good which makes potential suffering necessary. Thus even in objective morality, there a contextual relativism, but it is not absolute. The right action in any context is always that which is the greatest good, or rather that which brings the greatest fulfillment to the entities in question.

The problem with your stance is inasmuch the translation from abstract common-sense truisms to actual real-life examples is concerned.

While we can readily agree on the abstract common-sense truisms (e.g. "No action in the universe can be objectively good unless the action itself exists in reference to an absolute objective standard of Good."),
we will often disagree on how they apply or don't apply to actual real-life examples.

For example if you didn't have to punch the person in the face

We don't know when punching someone in the face is necessary and when it is not. Knowing such would require omniscience.

The right action in any context is always that which is the greatest good, or rather that which brings the greatest fulfillment to the entities in question.

If you really would believe that, you could never rightfully judge anyone, nor could you uphold the Catholic Church as the highest divine authority on earth.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Look at the cruel nature. Look at the indifferent cosmos, glimmering with stars older than all your ancestors of all species on this planet. Plea and rest assured that the weather doesn't honour our morality. Reason with a lion that it should not eat a child and see what it does. Try telling a virus that it is immoral to take over the physical processes of another lifeform for its own good. Tell the cheetahs that they shouldnt wound and let their cubs play with a young gazelle, that they should show some mercy. Is is redemption or evil when hyenas kill and eat the cheetah's cubs? Its neither, its just the way things are.
And then, look at the people around you and be thankful to your ancestors, who made and designed laws and rules to keep humans above this cruel, dangerous and often fatal state of things.

If there is something objective, it surely isnt what we humans have in mind or would want it to be.

People disagree all the time about physical and scientific truths. For example, at one time a large proportion of the scientific community were passionately invested in the ideas that the solar system revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat.

Then there was passionate disagreement and debate re opposing theories - that the solar system revolved around the sun (per Copernicus and Galileo) and that it was round (latched onto by Christopher Columbus).

Did this disagreement mean that each theory was merely subjective? Or that any theory was merely held due to attachment?

Of course not - many scientists DID change their minds once the globe was circumnavigated (proving it's roundness) and when more and more solid scientific backing emerged for heliocentrism. They weren't THAT emotionally attached to their theories.

Same goes for religion - there is such an amount of conversion and reversion of religion among believers, not to mention the number of people who go from being devout religious practitioners to abandoning religion altogether, either for amlong time or permanently, that there must be more than subjective attachment at play.

 

[Dywyddyr]

People disagree all the time about physical and scientific truths. For example, at one time a large proportion of the scientific community were passionately invested in the ideas that the solar system revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat.

Excuse me, which portions of the scientific community were in favour of the Geocentric system?

Then there was passionate disagreement and debate re opposing theories - snip - that it was round (latched onto by Christopher Columbus).

Since we'd known the Earth was round for ~2,000 years what debate was there?

Of course not - many scientists DID change their minds once the globe was circumnavigated (proving it's roundness) and when more and more solid scientific backing emerged for heliocentrism. They weren't THAT emotionally attached to their theories.

You're confusing things. Science qua science wasn't in existence back then.

 

[aaqucnaona]

People disagree all the time about physical and scientific truths. For example, at one time a large proportion of the scientific community were passionately invested in the ideas that the solar system revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat.

Then there was passionate disagreement and debate re opposing theories - that the solar system revolved around the sun (per Copernicus and Galileo) and that it was round (latched onto by Christopher Columbus).

Did this disagreement mean that each theory was merely subjective? Or that any theory was merely held due to attachment?

Of course not - many scientists DID change their minds once the globe was circumnavigated (proving it's roundness) and when more and more solid scientific backing emerged for heliocentrism. They weren't THAT emotionally attached to their theories.

Same goes for religion - there is such an amount of conversion and reversion of religion among believers, not to mention the number of people who go from being devout religious practitioners to abandoning religion altogether, either for amlong time or permanently, that there must be more than subjective attachment at play.

I dont see the point of your post. I said that nature and the world around us is a cruel and terrible place and humans have risen themselves above it. If something objective existed, it would be this world of nature not the world we have woven for ourselves.

 

[wynn]

I dont see the point of your post. I said that nature and the world around us is a cruel and terrible place and humans have risen themselves above it.

You'll need to show some evidence of this "humans have risen themselves" above the cruel and terrible place that nature is.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

You'll need to show some evidence of this "humans have risen themselves" above the cruel and terrible place that nature is.

I have not found anybody yet . Your all Animals with lizard brains that cut to the core .

Anybody can take the high road . It has nothing to do with what religion you prescribe to.

It is hard to do the right thing . It means you don't get to fuck someone out of there hard earned rewards . It means you don't take credit for someone else work as to reward your self in there stead . Who can do that ? Who does that ? People are good at convincing there denial selves that they them selves desire the credit with out the hard work associated to the work .
You take the average hard core Business owner or corporation ? How do they justify them selves getting the accolades of monetary gain? The worker is a piss ant . The unwashed blue collar worker is dirt under there feet . See how the justification works . Make the provider lower than your self . Convince the worker he is not worthy of there rewards cause anybody could do it .

O.K. then consider this : Who looks for the cheapest labor they can get and then exploit it ? What religion are they?

Consider these question : Is organized religion a Business ? Are they here to gather tithing or save souls ? What if they didn't collect tithing ? Would they still save souls ? Could they . Is it corruption for a church to take 10% from a poor family ? Is it corrupt for a Government to take taxes from a poor person . There is a lot a talk in the U.S. about all people paying there fair share . What is the fair share of a low wage earner while the administrator takes larger than life bone-asses.

Anyway morality is all about the high road and doing the right thing. To make it better for the next generation . Like when we back pack in the woods we say pack in pack out . Some back packers even pack out there own turds ( extreme mother fuckers , I would never do that my self being one of natures sons ) So you can get a feel for what I am saying . The high road is to leave it better off than it is now for the future generations . That is the soul work of humanity . The rest is just self serving gratification of the self centered .

So in conclusion the Atheist has the right to take the higher moral ground as much as anybody and Me being concerned for the future of my children see it as the Atheist obligation as well as any religions.

For the idiots out there : Eternal life = Survival of your future generation .

Love the son, love the Daughter , Love your mother love your Father and stop making Jesus an Idol . It is so wrong to put your family below some fuck nut that crawled up on a cross to die . That is so so wrong

 

[aaqucnaona]

I have not found anybody yet . Your all Animals with lizard brains that cut to the core .

Anybody can take the high road . It has nothing to do with what religion you prescribe to.

It is hard to do the right thing . It means you don't get to fuck someone out of there hard earned rewards . It means you don't take credit for someone else work as to reward your self in there stead . Who can do that ? Who does that ? People are good at convincing there denial selves that they them selves desire the credit with out the hard work associated to the work .
You take the average hard core Business owner or corporation ? How do they justify them selves getting the accolades of monetary gain? The worker is a piss ant . The unwashed blue collar worker is dirt under there feet . See how the justification works . Make the provider lower than your self . Convince the worker he is not worthy of there rewards cause anybody could do it .

O.K. then consider this : Who looks for the cheapest labor they can get and then exploit it ? What religion are they?

Consider these question : Is organized religion a Business ? Are they here to gather tithing or save souls ? What if they didn't collect tithing ? Would they still save souls ? Could they . Is it corruption for a church to take 10% from a poor family ? Is it corrupt for a Government to take taxes from a poor person . There is a lot a talk in the U.S. about all people paying there fair share . What is the fair share of a low wage earner while the administrator takes larger than life bone-asses.

Anyway morality is all about the high road and doing the right thing. To make it better for the next generation . Like when we back pack in the woods we say pack in pack out . Some back packers even pack out there own turds ( extreme mother fuckers , I would never do that my self being one of natures sons ) So you can get a feel for what I am saying . The high road is to leave it better off than it is now for the future generations . That is the soul work of humanity . The rest is just self serving gratification of the self centered .

So in conclusion the Atheist has the right to take the higher moral ground as much as anybody and Me being concerned for the future of my children see it as the Atheist obligation as well as any religions.

For the idiots out there : Eternal life = Survival of your future generation .

Love the son, love the Daughter , Love your mother love your Father and stop making Jesus an Idol . It is so wrong to put your family below some fuck nut that crawled up on a cross to die . That is so so wrong

Oh my *insert belief here*! Me ki Gal, you have just risen in my eyes to the cream of sciforums, along with Fraggle, Aqueous, Pete, Sam, Jan, Schez, etc.

 

[aaqucnaona]

You'll need to show some evidence of this "humans have risen themselves" above the cruel and terrible place that nature is.

Thats the entire point of having a civilization, isnt it? High death rates, low comfort, limited opportunities all deminished as man became better at what he is - a thinking social species.

 

[wynn]

Thats the entire point of having a civilization, isnt it? High death rates, low comfort, limited opportunities all deminished as man became better at what he is - a thinking social species.

Perhaps you need to watch the news a bit, then.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Perhaps you need to watch the news a bit, then.

Oh.
I didnt mean we are getting better. I meant we are getting more capable. ike we are more capable of treating disease and also more capable of creating new and deadly ones. We can globalise the world but we can also obliterate millions of people in a flash. We are masters of the planet but can also destroy it.

The balance of good and bad has remained pretty much constant, maybe improved a little. But the point is we are a species that decides, reflects on, thinks about and creates its own mental and physical environment. For better or worse, it puts us above the rest of our brothers on the tree of life.

Hence I said, Man has risen himself above nature.

 

[steampunk]

I have not found anybody yet . Your all Animals with lizard brains that cut to the core .

Anybody can take the high road . It has nothing to do with what religion you prescribe to.

It is hard to do the right thing . It means you don't get to fuck someone out of there hard earned rewards . It means you don't take credit for someone else work as to reward your self in there stead . Who can do that ? Who does that ? People are good at convincing there denial selves that they them selves desire the credit with out the hard work associated to the work .
You take the average hard core Business owner or corporation ? How do they justify them selves getting the accolades of monetary gain? The worker is a piss ant . The unwashed blue collar worker is dirt under there feet . See how the justification works . Make the provider lower than your self . Convince the worker he is not worthy of there rewards cause anybody could do it .

O.K. then consider this : Who looks for the cheapest labor they can get and then exploit it ? What religion are they?

Consider these question : Is organized religion a Business ? Are they here to gather tithing or save souls ? What if they didn't collect tithing ? Would they still save souls ? Could they . Is it corruption for a church to take 10% from a poor family ? Is it corrupt for a Government to take taxes from a poor person . There is a lot a talk in the U.S. about all people paying there fair share . What is the fair share of a low wage earner while the administrator takes larger than life bone-asses.

Anyway morality is all about the high road and doing the right thing. To make it better for the next generation . Like when we back pack in the woods we say pack in pack out . Some back packers even pack out there own turds ( extreme mother fuckers , I would never do that my self being one of natures sons ) So you can get a feel for what I am saying . The high road is to leave it better off than it is now for the future generations . That is the soul work of humanity . The rest is just self serving gratification of the self centered .

So in conclusion the Atheist has the right to take the higher moral ground as much as anybody and Me being concerned for the future of my children see it as the Atheist obligation as well as any religions.

For the idiots out there : Eternal life = Survival of your future generation .

Love the son, love the Daughter , Love your mother love your Father and stop making Jesus an Idol . It is so wrong to put your family below some fuck nut that crawled up on a cross to die . That is so so wrong

Great post!

 

[steampunk]

The term morality has been smattered, it incites confusion without proper stipulation. The confusion is that it is used in two fundamentally different ways: acts of preference (that do not harm others) and acts that harm others. If a choice is made to stipulate morality to one of those fundamentals for a discussion, more progress could be made.

I.e., a man having more than one wife is immoral in the first sense, but not in the second. Why? Its a culural or personal preference and multiple wives harm no one.

 

[wynn]

Hence I said, Man has risen himself above nature.

If all we do is simply pursue the activities that are common to all living beings, namely eating, sleeping, mating and defending, in their various forms and associated activities, not aspiring for anything higher, then we have not "risen above nature."

 

[Enmos]

What is higher than that? You owe your very existence to those 'lower urges'.

 

[gmilam]

Perhaps you need to watch the news a bit, then.

If nature is of "god", how can nature be a cruel and terrible place? Although it is true that bad news sells more advertising than good news does.

 

[wynn]

If nature is of "god", how can nature be a cruel and terrible place?

If it functions as a temporary play- and purgatory-like place, and also offering opportunities to learn about eternal matters, then there is no problem.

 

[aaqucnaona]

If it functions as a temporary play- and purgatory-like place, and also offering opportunities to learn about eternal matters, then there is no problem.

The familiar apologetic theologian doing logical gymnastics that totally ignore the rule of parsimony.

 

[gmilam]

If it functions as a temporary play- and purgatory-like place, and also offering opportunities to learn about eternal matters, then there is no problem.

The universe is eternal, we are the temporary part. And there is no problem.

 

[Imperfectionist]

If all we do is simply pursue the activities that are common to all living beings, namely eating, sleeping, mating and defending, in their various forms and associated activities, not aspiring for anything higher, then we have not "risen above nature."

To think that religion is the only way to transcend our origins is also delusional.