Atheism and morality

[downbeatplumb]

My view allows that morality can alter over time. There is no problem here. No contradictions are generated.

Really no contradictions at all?
Did you type that with a straight face?

[Inigo]

So you think an act is right if and only if it is approved of by one's society? That's clearly false and only someone incompetent with moral concepts would think it.
When 'society' disapproved of giving women the vote that didn't make it morally right to deprive them of it, did it?

It did at the time.

Queen Victoria was shocked by women trying to demand the vote. She knew that morally men were the masters, (the bible said so). So trying to gain the vote was immoral.

I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights', with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection."

http://blog.biographyonline.net/2007/10/...omens.html

But societies changed, morals improved.

As a result people are more moral now than at any point in history.

If you say 'morals improved' you assume an independent moral standard - a moral standard that is independent of one's society and against which one's societies' norms are assessed. In other words, we morally assess our - and past - societies' beliefs and actions.
There is, for instance, nothing remotely incoherent in wondering whether what your society approves of is really right. On your view that thought would be incoherent. It ins't. Your view is false.
Now, that's a headshot. Your view is false. I just shot it dead. I can shoot it through the head some more, if you like. But kindly recognise that it has just been shot dead and stop bringing it to the party.

[fr0d0]

But societies changed, morals improved.

As a result people are more moral now than at any point in history.

I want to put that into a time capsule so that our descendants can laugh at our naivety. I doubt they'd learn from it though (being all atheists)

[Inigo]

My view allows that morality can alter over time. There is no problem here. No contradictions are generated.

Really no contradictions at all?
Did you type that with a straight face?

All talk and no trouser. Generate one. Generate a contradiction. Let's see what you got.

[downbeatplumb]

If you say 'morals improved' you assume an independent moral standard - a moral standard that is independent of one's society and against which one's societies' norms are assessed.

No, I am judging it by the more advanced modern morals of a society that has evolved.

Do try to keep up.

[Inigo]

Frankly having seen your arguments they carry so much that smacks of religion I have huge doubts you were ever atheist. You are far to ready to allocate good things to God and only evil to man.

The idea that people only behave morally through threat of punishment from God is a nauseating one that permeates Christianity.

No, I was an atheist and no longer qualify. I am someone who follows reason wherever it leads, even if I don't like it and even if it means I can no longer be in the club. I suggest that you entertain these fantasies about me so that you do not have to take seriously my arguments. That, of course, is to engage in the ad hominem fallacy. I am not a Christian and never was, but it wouldn't matter anyway, the validity of my conclusions is unaffected.

You then, once again, attribute to me a view that I have never defended. I have never argued that one needs to believe in god or divine punishments in order to be motivated to behave morally.

You do not refute my arguments by attributing to me an entirely different and implausible view and then attacking that view.

---

If you say 'morals improved' you assume an independent moral standard - a moral standard that is independent of one's society and against which one's societies' norms are assessed.

No, I am judging it by the more advanced modern morals of a society that has evolved.

Do try to keep up.

You're fired.

[max-greece]

Why on earth do you think I prefer 'enforcement'?
And I have already said, quite clearly, that talk of 'god's morality' just demonstrates a failure to grasp what is being said. I don't know what you mean when you talk of a 'god's morality'. Do you mean a god's moral beliefs? Or what? You're conceptually confused. Morality just 'is' a god's instructions and favourings. the god doesn't 'have' a morality, morality isn't something you 'have'. (Would you like anything with your coffee, sir? yes please, I'll have some morality with it if you've got any)

My view allows that what is right or wrong can alter over time. It does not entail that it has changed, just that it can. You seemed to think my view implied morality was fixed over time (and that this was a problem). I explained that it had no such implication and wondered why on earth you thought it did. You provided no answer. I explained that my view allows that right and wrong can alter over time, and now you consider THAT a problem. Odd. Seems you think morality is, and is not, fixed! More evidence that you're fundamentally confused.

But anyway, there is no problem if morality turns out to be fixed over time, and no problem if it isn't. My view allows that morality can alter over time. There is no problem here. No contradictions are generated. And it does not imply that if you sense that something is wrong that everyone else senses is right then it must be wrong for you and right for everyone else. If I sense that it is wrong for YOU to x and you sense that it is right for you to x we are disagreeing. It can't be right and wrong for you to x.

Now you are just being disingenuous. You have said something to the effect of God's punishment for not obeying her rules - if that isn't enforcement what is.

God's morality?

From another poster:

“Second mistake. You regard "morality" as some sort of physical aspect of the world - referring to moral "phenomena" or "sensations". As if morality were an aspect of the the universe like shape or color, which can be sensed of felt. This creates a false dichotomy where if it exists, then it exists independently and as an aspect of reality and if it doesn't then it is illusory.

Your response:

Once again, I 'conclude' that it is. Just telling me what I conclude - even if you do it in a certain tone and really dislike it - does not amount to any kind of challenge to my view or justify rejecting it. Morality is an agent, a kind of god, and I have explained why it must be. What you are doing is mistaking your dislike for this conclusion with a fault in my argument. "

Hardly something worth bringing up on your side was it!

Also notice that is was you that "concluded" morality as a physical aspect - so don't attempt to poke fun at me for using your ludicrous position in this argument.

The reason I thought your God's morality was fixed over time is that this is how all religions paint it - and you argue like a religious person.

That you now paint an inconsistent morality is even more of a problem that a fixed one. Lets not kid ourselves here - we are stuck in your imaginary world - not mine. I see no external morality outside of humanity - you do - I am playing by your rules and you are mocking me for it - bit rich.

I am not fundamentally confused - I cannot speak for you.

“No, the reverse is true. My belief that Xing is wrong contradicts your belief that Xing is right if and only if we are talking about the same morality. So, my belief that Xing is wrong is the belief that morality instructs us not to X. Your belief that Xing is right is the belief that morality instructs us to X. These beliefs contradict. But they are beliefs about one morality.
If my belief was that morality1 instructs us not to X, and your belief was that morality2 instructs us to X then our beliefs do not contradict. “

Here is a part of what originally fooled me that you thought there was no right or wrong position. That God merely flagged up that there was a moral issue.

What you have not addressed is what use this moral God when her communications can be so differently interpreted.

Further, the use of morality1 and morality2 is a typical religious construction to deny an obvious contradiction.

[Inigo]

So Inigo, what are your thoughts so far? Have your thoughts developed or adapted since you started your dialogue here?
We seem bereft of philosophy students at this moment in time, who could perhaps challenge you in that arena (apart from apoplexia of course). Have you raised the question on those type of fora?

So far nobody has shown me the error of my ways. Indeed, so far it seems clear to me that everyone else is in error. It seems to me that virtually everyone is confusing moral sensations and beliefs with morality itself. This is odd as such a mistake is rarely made in other arenas. We rarely confuse beliefs in chairs with chairs, for instance. But confusing moral beliefs with morality seems commonplace. Until this mistake stops, my case isn't really being addressed.

The only criticism that I think has any legs, and that has so far only been hinted at, is the so-called Euthyphro problem. I may be wrong about that - perhaps there are other problems with my position that I'm unaware of. Needless to say, at present I do not think the euthyphro problem really works - but I think if a good objection to my view is to be found, this is where it will be found.

Obviously anyone who has taken any introductory ethics course will be aware of the Euthyphro problem as it is the means by which divine command theories of ethics are summarily dismissed. So I welcome any attacks from philosophy students. I will try to show that it is quite mistaken to reject divine command views on this basis

[max-greece]

Really no contradictions at all?
Did you type that with a straight face?

All talk and no trouser. Generate one. Generate a contradiction. Let's see what you got.

I did - you ignored it.

[pocaracas]

22 pages later, and nothing new.... typical theist...
I have to commend you on trying to answer everyone.

I still think you're wrong on your notion on "moral belief" vs "morality", but it seems no amount of typing will make you understand it...
Let me try to keep it real simple and short:
- Morality comes both from the evolution of our species as a societal one, and from agreed upon principles within each group.