1.6% of the North American population says that even though adherents of their world-view, like Peter Singer, advocate the right of women to kill their children until around one month old, there is no way to determine if this action is right or wrong.
According to atheists, it is totally up to the individual to decide what is right or wrong.
That’s what these people are like. It’s how they think
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Right and wrong are up to the collective, not the individual. Certainly, we have our own subjective individual definitions of right and wrong, however individual actions compromising the assigned morality of the group are violations of objective law and are subject to the assigned redirection or punishment determined by the group. Individual morality is defined when the individual makes decisions that satisfy self interest AND abide the prosperity of the collective.
ReplyDeleteBut keep in mind, individual freedom also serves the interests of the group and therefore should be preserved with the greatest possible freedom without compromising the foundation of rights attached to the group.
If the collective determines that killing infants is wrong, then it augments into the foundation of rights attached to the collective and cannot be violated by the actions of the individual. Individuals ALREADY have a right to determine right and wrong, even if they are religious. However we have a "safety wall" of laws in place to prevent individual morality from compromising the rights of the collective. Christians do not have a moral advantage, because Christians engage in the same immoral behavior as those not attached to Christianity.
ReplyDeleteI think we'll disagree on something here Atheistsnackbar, and that's excellent because people like Thesauros keep placing everyone in two separate categories for everything, you are either a Christian like him, or a functional Atheist.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion here is that right and wrong are up to the individual, not the collective.
A few quick points to clarify that idea...
- This is in no way related to truth. Right in this context strictly means morally right only. It's actually the complete opposite for truth, it is NOT up to the individual.
- Saying that it's up to the individual means nothing like what Thesauros is describing; as usual he is misrepresenting a point of view he does not understand, do not care about, and consider wrong without scrutiny.
- Even if it's up to the individual, it can have an objective framework or basis. Empathy would be one of the basis for my morality.
- The fact that we share many common values make collective morality possible, which in turn makes civilization and societies workable, but never perfect.
Christians like Thesauros on the other hand, claim that they have some objective morality coming from their god. They cannot explain how they know what's wrong or not as they have no way of determining what their god really wants, and yet they claim that we are the ones who cannot. That's the irony behind all this...
I like what you said Hugo.
ReplyDeleteI think I should clarify some things,
I don't suggest that individual morality does not exist, but rather I put emphesis on a duel moral system. In this system both individual and collective morality exist, but ultimately collective morality holds authority over the individual. But this is only at the level of extremes. Individual freedom would be held sacred, but when individual morality harms the freedoms of others, a collective structure must be in place to protect a foundation of freedoms defined by the collective. Actually, I'm simply describing how things already work.
People always say, "without religion chaos would reign." this is wrong, I find it more accurate to say "without cops, chaos would reign."
The reason we can get away with building our moral basis around the collective, without promoting a "stalinesque utopia", is because what Stalin and mao didn't understand, is how important individual freedom is for endorsing the collective. Human societies must function under a structure that compliments the human individual. Otherwise what purpose is the collective, if not to enhance the quality of life for the individual?
I'm a compatiblist when it comes to objective morality. I think the fact that there cannot be an absolute right and wrong does not compromise objective morality. I simply think our definition for objective morality needs to be redefined for conditions that better reflect the real world. Basically, if absolute objective morality cannot exist, then why not bestow the term upon the next best thing, collective morality. Collective morality is the average or equalibrium calculated by the sum of the individuals. As such, it's less chaotic and random than the dynamic range of individual interpretations of morality. As such it is more structured and predictable. It's not absolute, but it is reasonably consistant.
ReplyDeleteTo pretend that absolutes exist in a subjective system is flawed from the start, this is the problem with theists. They ACTUALLY believe there is a right and wrong answer that is absolute in ANY scenario. They say "thou shalt not kill." but if the only way to stop the nazis from invading your country is to kill them, then the immoral thing would be to NOT KILL, and leave the innocent unprotected from those who wish to do them harm when there are those capable of preventing it. That's why I'm not a pacifist by the way, but that's another conversation.
Your error is in equating objective morality, which Christianity teaches, with absolute morality, which Christianity does not teach.
ReplyDelete============
“but when individual morality harms the freedoms of others, a collective structure must be in place.”
Yes, like when a young woman in a Muslim community exercises her individual morality and de converts, or begins dating a man from a different faith, the wellbeing of the community is threatened. Therefore the collective morality must take precedent and based on the collective morality, she must be stoned to death.
On atheism, while that action may be objectively wrong in “your” community, it is obviously and objectively right from the collective’s perspective, in their community.
Yes? And if not "yes" on what basis do you judge their actions to be wrong in their community collective?
Good reply mak.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the characteristics of Christian morality...
If Christian morality is not absolute, is it not relativistic?
I have MY definition for objective morality, what is the Christian definition for objective morality?
Now again, my contention was indeed to express the importance of a collective morality, HOWEVER your ignoring a very large part of the message. I thought I made it clear that individual freedom is to be held sacred. Now, if a muslim woman cannot marry outside her religion, how does that maintain the sacred nature of personal freedom? Read it again if necessary because it is there.
If the Islamic woman's actions are a defined infraction of the collective's base morality, then the collective's authority will, over time deminish and give way to a system that better compliments the nature of the human individual. What I had already said is...
Human societies must function under a structure that compliments the human individual. Otherwise what purpose is the collective, if not to enhance the quality of life of the individual?
AGAIN, I had said that the collective's authority would only take over at the level of extremes. A system that promotes the suffering of it's individual agents is not a sustainable system, it's self defeating, it compromises the sum value of it's collective. And while these systems do exist, they will ultimately transition to systems more efficient at granting personal freedom and collective prosperity, SIMULTANEOUSLY.
This is precisely why we are able to witness an evolution of rights and personal freedoms. Woman could not vote, now they can. African americans did not have freedom, now they do. And just recently, the Gallup poles show, for the first time, "homosexual tolerance" is over 50 percent. Maybe even atheists will be trusted someday? ;)
any questions?
I think Hugo said it well when he said...
ReplyDeleteThe fact that we share many common values make collective morality possible, which in turn make civilization and societies workable, but never perfect
I would add that civilization evolves. Not always in a linear and perfect way, but rather a chaotic and sometimes painfully slow gravitation towards granting the freedoms and rights of all individuals. There are obstacles in the way. Religions like Islam stunt the healthy growth of the collective, but such a hinderance in the way if moral growth will only get trampled by the momentum of human individuality and freedom that can only exist in such advanced societies. It is our cause, to defeat any system that strips human beings of their right to a quality of life that can only operate under the freedom that human knowledge can provide.
If your looking for the binary code or DNA of morality, here it is...
ReplyDelete* Don't hurt
* Do help
This may have had to been assigned, but I'll take the privilage to assign it. Of course it naturally fits as a human objective, it's towards the direction of progress. If our structure was,
- do hurt
- don't help
then we'd have an extremely difficult time sustaining a succesful collective. Just look at the nations that operate under hateful rules like stoning women for the crime if getting raped. We've streamed enough human history to be able to understand the basic foundation by which to govern the collective. Those oblivious to it, will not survive.
Have I left anything out?
“what is the Christian definition for objective morality?”
ReplyDeleteJust as physical laws are fully realised in the physical world, objective moral laws are fully realised in Jesus and Father God. As I stated before, our daily interactions with others shows we know beyond doubt that objective moral order is as real and independent of our recognition as is the natural order of things. Our perceptions of natural and moral laws are givens of our experience.
. Objective moral Goodness and Obligation are based on God’s character. God’s commands are not arbitrary, for they are the inescapable expression of His Just and Loving nature. And, since our moral obligations are grounded in the Divine commands, that come out of His Divine character, moral values and duties do not exist independent of God.
. What God commands or permits is good and what He forbids is wrong, bad, evil, self-destructive.
This is what it means for morality to be objective vs. subjective, selective or relative to the situation. Objective morality is not based on the individual’s character or personality or level of empathy, or that person’s likes or dislikes, sanity or insanity. Nor is it based on the ebb and flow of the communities likes / dislikes etc..
Why choose God as opposed to you or me or Hugo?
God by definition is the least arbitrary stopping point, the least arbitrary point of final authority. That's what it means for morals to be objective. They have a grounding in a final and ultimate authorty.
God doesn’t just exemplify goodness. He IS goodness.
God doesn't just exemplify justice. He IS Justice.
God doen't just exemplify love. He IS love.
Almost everyone is willing to recognise an ultimate standard of goodness. Choosing, as Hugo does, the individual as the ultimate standard of good and bad, right and wrong sets up obvious and irreconcilable issues of conflict.
===========
“I made it clear that individual freedom is to be held sacred.”
That’s what YOU think is the right way to do things. Other cultures and sub groups within cultures think differently. What you think is an evolution toward a better society some see as regression.
Anyhow, what you said was -
“but when individual morality harms the freedoms of others,”
That is precisely what Muslims and Hindus believe is happening when people of their faith convert to Christianity. I’ve heard it said in exactly those terms. The very stability and security of the nation is in jeopardy when people de convert. Therefore the collective preempts the individual.
============
“they will ultimately transition to systems more efficient at granting personal freedom and collective prosperity,”’
Only in times of prosperity and ease. In times of chaos or economic strain, the move is in precisely the opposite direction, to one of less individual freedoms.
Just as physical laws are fully realised in the physical world, objective moral laws are fully realised in Jesus and Father God
ReplyDeleteYou are so laughably juvenile at times...
The only objective law given to you by the Bible and Christianity is this: "Whatever God says is good, is good. Whatever God says is bad, is bad"
This means God could tell you that raping babies is good, and you would have to do it. You have no basis for claiming God would never do such a thing, for you do not have the authority or power to question this deity of yours.
Ergo, there is only one "moral law", and if it is embodied by a deity, you are an immoral slave of that deity.
Is this what you're like, Makarios? Is this how you think?
Mak said ..."Yes, like when a young woman in a Muslim community exercises her individual morality and de converts, or begins dating a man from a different faith, the wellbeing of the community is threatened. Therefore the collective morality must take precedent and based on the collective morality, she must be stoned to death.
ReplyDeleteOn atheism, while that action may be objectively wrong in “your” community, it is obviously and objectively right from the collective’s perspective, in their community."
But the fact is its the communitys laws that shes breaking and the law of those lands might state the penalty is to be death by stoning.
Elsewhere we too have our own sets of laws that are thought fair and just penalty for our crimes,it might be death by lethal injection for severe rape or something like hat.Maybe not such a severe punishment as stoning considdering the crime needed is lots worse, but still thats still decided by human within their own cultures and both are subjective.And to suggest one is really any worse than the other even though it might be,is merely mostly coming to a matter of culture and opinion.
If all laws in the old testimant were thought objectively moral ,we might also still be stoning people to death in our countries for many trivial reasons also.
ReplyDeleteIts that fact that i ideas on the matter of thought chnange and evolved a long the way ,that in turn led to us deciding against stoning people.
That change is recorded in the bible and suggested as being new laws paased down from God.
However these changes are obviously seen as being very human ...As why would a all knowing being ever have reason to go changing his mind ? ....Specially when the book also try stating ...God is the same yesterday today and also tomorrow.
Somethings obviously playing tricks ...being deceitful ...And getting itself found out in the process