What moral right does an atheist have?

[gmilam]

That means you believe that your understanding of religion should be accepted above all others.
Why should it?

Do you think the government should be teaching religion to kids? :bugeye: Jesus, these people pay $5,000 for a hammer.

 

[wynn]

Do you think the government should be teaching religion to kids?

Some people believe it should.

Why should your understanding of religion be accepted above all others?

 

[gmilam]

Some people believe it should.

Why should your understanding of religion be accepted above all others?

Once again, it's my understanding - what other understanding have I got to work with? Luckily we live in a society where we try to work together and come to agreements through a democratic process.

 

[wynn]

You tend to present your understanding in terms that suggest you believe it is the objective truth.

 

[gmilam]

You tend to present your understanding in terms that suggest you believe it is the objective truth.

I've never claimed that. When I'm wrong, I usually find out and adjust my understanding accordingly.

But, once again, if I can't trust my own judgment, then how can I tell whose judgment I should trust?

 

[kx000]

I've never claimed that. When I'm wrong, I usually find out and adjust my understanding accordingly.

But, once again, if I can't trust my own judgment, then how can I tell whose judgment I should trust?

If you judge your judgment as bad, but it is good, imagine the harm that can be caused. You really shouldn't judge others.

 

[Psyche]

I expected a reply like this, and it points to a core factor of your line of reasoning: namely, that we are alien to the Universe (so that the laws of the Universe do not hold for the workings of our bodies and minds); or that the Universe doesn't really have any laws, and so anything can make anyone happy, or sad.

I posit that the sadist's happiness is not true happiness; a Universe in which one person's true happiness would come at the cost of another's true happiness, would be a lawless Universe or one in which we are alien.[/qupte]

I argue that neither is the case, and that instead one being's true happiness does not take anything away from another's true happiness, and that there is regularity in the Universe.

I don't believe a sadist's happiness is true happiness either. But such an evaluation is an aesthetic judgment that cannot be proven.

You are describing a demigod or an alien god.
God, with the capital G, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is in charge of the workings of the Universe, so per definition. For God, the problem you describe does not apply; it applies for a demigod who would mistakenly be assumed to be God.

The point I am making is about what is knowable versus what is supposition. If God transcends all categories of human understanding than you are not explaining anything by insisting that he transcends all categories of human understanding.

It is precisely because there is an inbuilt mechanism of cause and effect, that we can talk about objective morality.

If this were true than there would be no reason to believe that anything bad could possibly happen to anyone who didn't deserve it. And because bad things happen to everyone, it would mean that everyone is automatically guilty simply for the fact of their being alive. The problem with this is that a theory of morality that is impossible to practice isn't morality at all because choice is the essential precondition for the act of making moral decisions. Without choice, identifying an action as good or evil is meaningless.

Objectively, the universe itself is indifferent to human suffering. But to identify with the aspect of the universe that is indifferent to human suffering is psychologically impossible, and that explains why you mistake your understanding of morality to actually be an objective property of the cosmos.

Good is that which is in line with our true nature, and evil is that which is not; good is that which leads to true happiness, and evil is that which doesn't.

This is so because God made it so.

God's opinion doesn't count. Appealing to the existence of an imaginary friend who has the answer to this question is not the same thing as an actual answer. Everyone can play around with definitions, but without a systematic form of critically evaluating claims of right and wrong, that's all we are doing.

Of course. What gets disabled or killed is the body, not the person (who resides in the body and who reincarnates, ie. takes on new bodies).

It is irrational to use the physical body to insist that consciousness isn't limited to the physical body. If you are right, you should be able to use aspects of your self which are not limited to your physical body to make the case. Otherwise, I have no cause to take this claim seriously.

Which seems to be the reason why people kill.

People are driven to kill for many reasons. The precondition of being psychologically dead seems to be the one constant (with the exception of murder committed in self-defense.)

So your criterion for moral action seems to be, if I understood you correctly:
"Moral action is the kind of action that can be performed by all, without anyone being obstructed in their efforts by others' efforts."

This seems to be allright.

But your examples of such moral action - curiosity and mutual exchange - seem to work only for a small number of people at a time, as little as two at a time.

What if two people both want a mutual exchange with a third person, and the third person wants a mutual exchange with both, but each person can have only one exchange at a time? Then there will be competition, and competition is not moral!

In the very act of engaging in a debate you are setting your ideas up to compete with mine. And it is through this dialectic process that our understanding of the world is enriched. Contrast this approach with one of ideological conformity to witness that no meaningful communication, indeed no moral transaction, between persons is then possible. You take away competition and you take away choice. And as I already pointed out, a standard of morality that is impossible to practice is self-contradicting. You cannot help but to chose to accept or reject my arguments, just like you cannot help but to chose to accept or reject the existence of God. You are not being immoral by making those choices. Indeed, if competition were immoral than morality itself would be immoral as it inevitably has set itself up to compete with immorality as the standard candle by which human action is to be judged.

 

[wynn]

The point I am making is about what is knowable versus what is supposition. If God transcends all categories of human understanding than you are not explaining anything by insisting that he transcends all categories of human understanding.

Nobody suggested that God is completely unknowable.

It is precisely because there is an inbuilt mechanism of cause and effect, that we can talk about objective morality.

If this were true than there would be no reason to believe that anything bad could possibly happen to anyone who didn't deserve it. And because bad things happen to everyone, it would mean that everyone is automatically guilty simply for the fact of their being alive. The problem with this is that a theory of morality that is impossible to practice isn't morality at all because choice is the essential precondition for the act of making moral decisions. Without choice, identifying an action as good or evil is meaningless.

It is indeed common to think that morality concerns itself with issues of good and evil.
We need to be more specific, though: Good for what? Evil for what?
Actions are good (or evil) for someone or something, for some purpose.

Without knowing the purpose for an action, we can't say whether it was good or evil.

Objectively, the universe itself is indifferent to human suffering.

?

But to identify with the aspect of the universe that is indifferent to human suffering is psychologically impossible, and that explains why you mistake your understanding of morality to actually be an objective property of the cosmos.

The mistake is all yours to think that we are alien to the Universe.

See also this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=91142

Good is that which is in line with our true nature, and evil is that which is not; good is that which leads to true happiness, and evil is that which doesn't.

This is so because God made it so.

God's opinion doesn't count.

I stated a truism that follows from the usual definition of God.

Appealing to the existence of an imaginary friend who has the answer to this question is not the same thing as an actual answer. Everyone can play around with definitions, but without a systematic form of critically evaluating claims of right and wrong, that's all we are doing.

It is not possible for a being that is at most subjective (such as humans) to make valid objective statements.

Our best hope for objectivity is to at least theoretically involve an entity that can be objective (such as God) and see how that works out.

It is irrational to use the physical body to insist that consciousness isn't limited to the physical body.

And who is doing that?

If you are right, you should be able to use aspects of your self which are not limited to your physical body to make the case.

What do you mean?

People are driven to kill for many reasons. The precondition of being psychologically dead seems to be the one constant (with the exception of murder committed in self-defense.)

How do you distinguish cases of self-defense from those that aren't?

When the US attacked Iraq, qas that self-defense, or were the US "psychologically dead"?

And it is through this dialectic process that our understanding of the world is enriched.

Not necessarily. We could just be wasting time.

Contrast this approach with one of ideological conformity to witness that no meaningful communication, indeed no moral transaction, between persons is then possible. You take away competition and you take away choice. And as I already pointed out, a standard of morality that is impossible to practice is self-contradicting. You cannot help but to chose to accept or reject my arguments, just like you cannot help but to chose to accept or reject the existence of God. You are not being immoral by making those choices. Indeed, if competition were immoral than morality itself would be immoral as it inevitably has set itself up to compete with immorality as the standard candle by which human action is to be judged.

Competition inevitably brings in use of force at some point. You've stated before that use of force is immoral.