Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

So if a more than a billion people say something is correct is it not thereby determined as ethically correct under utilitarianism even if it is not necessarily morally correct?  I am going to have to give that some thought.

How can something be ethically correct but not morally correct?  It seems the two are synonymous.

I will try to keep this simple.  

There is the Natural Law, the Ethical Law, and the Moral Law.  

The Natural law as the natural laws governing the physics of what things are and how they interact with one another.  Under the natural law what is done is what CAN be done and nothing can be done which violates the natural law.

The Ethical law is a restriction upon the Natural law in order to facilitate social interaction among humans (and is there by regionally determined).  Under the ethical law what is done is what is socially acceptable (where socially acceptable is determined by argumentum ad numerum of the given society).

The Moral law is a further restriction upon the ethical law where by the Subject (our person) opts to constrain their conduct beyond what is just socially acceptable (for reasons that may extended beyond the self but are rooted in the self).  Under the ethical law what is done is what is determined as acceptable by the individual.

For example:

Under the natural law the rule is survival of the fittest.  If I can kill it than I am allowed to kill it.
Under the ethical law the rule is what is best for the society.  I can kill it if everyone is okay with it.
Under the moral law the rules is what I am okay with.  I can kill it if I am okay with it.

I hope that explanation helps.

---

As requested, thread moved to the Philosophy forum.

Thank you.

---

How can something be ethically correct but not morally correct?  It seems the two are synonymous.

I will try to keep this simple.  

There is the Natural Law, the Ethical Law, and the Moral Law.  

The Natural law as the natural laws governing the physics of what things are and how they interact with one another.  Under the natural law what is done is what CAN be done and nothing can be done which violates the natural law.

The Ethical law is a restriction upon the Natural law in order to facilitate social interaction among humans (and is there by regionally determined).  Under the ethical law what is done is what is socially acceptable (where socially acceptable is determined by argumentum ad numerum of the given society).

The Moral law is a further restriction upon the ethical law where by the Subject (our person) opts to constrain their conduct beyond what is just socially acceptable (for reasons that may extended beyond the self but are rooted in the self).  Under the ethical law what is done is what is determined as acceptable by the individual.

For example:

Under the natural law the rule is survival of the fittest.  If I can kill it than I am allowed to kill it.
Under the ethical law the rule is what is best for the society.  I can kill it if everyone is okay with it.
Under the moral law the rules is what I am okay with.  I can kill it if I am okay with it.

I hope that explanation helps.

It may be further said the statement, "God made man in his own image"

Is in reference to the ability of mankind (as God) to restrain himself beyond the natural law and the ethical law to the degree of the moral law.  Since it may easily be argued that God is the most willfully constrained being in all of existence (if he does in fact exist).

[Ben Davis]

from the UK, Anima. I'll wade in soon.

[Angrboda]

For example:

Under the natural law the rule is survival of the fittest.  If I can kill it than I am allowed to kill it.
Under the ethical law the rule is what is best for the society.  I can kill it if everyone is okay with it.
Under the moral law the rules is what I am okay with.  I can kill it if I am okay with it.

I hope that explanation helps.

It does. So ethics and ethical law concern what is right by social convention. Whereas moral law is what is right by personal standard of right and wrong.

There is a close alignment between ethical law on your view, and legislative morality. It seems to me that applying the word 'ethical' to legislative morality you are endorsing a specific view of morals in which the consensus determines what is right or wrong. I would just point out that this is not the only secular theory of morals, there are moral realists, and anti-realists, who hold differing opinions to the somewhat anti-realist position of relativism. Codifying a specific moral theory into the language with which you describe right and wrong seems one step away from begging the question.

[Anima]

For example:

Under the natural law the rule is survival of the fittest.  If I can kill it than I am allowed to kill it.
Under the ethical law the rule is what is best for the society.  I can kill it if everyone is okay with it.
Under the moral law the rules is what I am okay with.  I can kill it if I am okay with it.

I hope that explanation helps.

It does.  So ethics and ethical law concern what is right by social convention.  Whereas moral law is what is right by personal standard of right and wrong.

There is a close alignment between ethical law on your view, and legislative morality.  It seems to me that applying the word 'ethical' to legislative morality you are endorsing a specific view of morals in which the consensus determines what is right or wrong.  I would just point out that this is not the only secular theory of morals, there are moral realists, and anti-realists, who hold differing opinions to the somewhat anti-realist position of relativism.  Codifying a specific moral theory into the language with which you describe right and wrong seems one step away from begging the question.

The maximum manifestation of ethics is in the law.  However, not all ethical rules are manifested as law (think proper etiquette).  Furthermore I did not state right or wrong in regards to ethics.  Ethics does not determine what is right or wrong, rather it determines what is socially acceptable or legal (hence I can kill it if everyone is okay with it.  That is not to say whether I should kill it or not.)

It is correct that the two overlap often enough, but we would be mistaken in holding them as the same; as the state may do for the sake of the whole that which is not morally acceptable.

When the moral law and ethical law conflict the ethical law is to prevail as it governs more than just our person.  When the ethical law and the moral law conflict the natural law is to prevail because nothing can be in contradiction to the natural law.

[LastPoet]

[Anima]

I admit that any morality is based on an imaginary friend.  Including those of an atheist.  The difference being the theist imaginary friend is someone else and the atheist imaginary friend is their self.

Can you clear this part up for me?  Are you saying the theist imagines their friend to be someone else while the atheist is restricted from doing so?

I am stating that in order for anyone to make moral decisions they must appeal to something which the atheist would consider imaginary. 

---

As you wish:

I understand the atheistic position to not accept that which may not be empirically verified.  Therefore it may be said atheism does not recognize that which is metaphysical and cannot be verified empirically.  

I further understand atheism to contend that our sentiments, feelings, compulsion, instincts, and so forth are simply a result of of the chemical reactions in our brains.  Thereby rendering us as meat automatons which react to stimuli.

Being meat automatons that react to stimuli means there is no "person" and we are no different than a rock which reacts to its surroundings or bacteria which reacts to stimuli.

By now it should have been pointed out to you, but this shows how far I've gotten in the thread so far.  Atheists vary a great deal in their self concept as much as anything else.  While the percentage that would agree with the part I've bolded is probably high, it is far from 100%.  The only thing you can count on with atheists is that we don't entertain a belief in gods.  Everything else varies

This was said earlier and is paradoxical to me.  I understand an atheist position based on lack of empirical evidence or lack of personal experience.  But if an atheist is willing to concede the existence of metaphysical things they cannot or have not experienced the Theist may then quote one CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow, "So we agree my theory is sound in principle and now we are just haggling over price."

---

For the theist it will be the imaginary guy in the sky.  For the atheist it will be that they do not "feel" it is right.  Which leads me to my initial meat automaton statement how there is no "person" to feel.  Thus the feeling is imaginary or fictitious.

Aren't you forgetting that for the theist there must be some self-centered justification for accepting a man in the sky?  Don't theists feel it is important to heed the man in the sky?  Is there any reason to think this feeling is any more durable than the feeling atheists have that harming another is repulsive?

I am not forgetting.  However, the theist accepts the existence of metaphysical things with out empirical evidence or personal experience.  The atheist does not (see portion above about haggling over price) and thereby may not contend "they" (something other than the physical being) exists or that "they" "feel".

---

Ergo, the need for an imaginary friend for moral conduct.

But which one?  The one claiming to be the god of the bible - or the one that just keeps saying to kill them all?  (Please choose carefully.)

A great question.  For the theist the imaginary friend includes the self, the conscience, the voices, the personification of an inanimate object (think Wilson from Cast Away), and/or god(s).  For the Atheist the imaginary friend is the same with the exclusion of god(s).  Which again takes me back to the theory of the theist being sound in principle and now just haggling over price.

---

Might we say that atheism like evolution is comprised of sub elements to it?

Evolution maybe said to be the theory which arise out of chaos theory, naturalism, genetics, and natural selection.

As such we may say that Atheism is comprised of several sub elements.

Atheism seems to be comprised of realativism, empiricism/materialism, and skepticism.

The element which I am focusing on is the empiricism/materialism portion.

Nothing to stop you from saying it, but you'd be wrong.  Atheism isn't a monolithic whole composed of essential stances.  Atheism is simply the response "no, I don't think I do" to the question "do you believe in god(s)?"  I've noticed theists have a hard time wrapping their heads around this point.

Invariably they do for the same reason the Atheist has a hard time wrapping their head around the yes response.  When the theist states yes the Atheist asks why.  In like kind the Theist recognizes the answer is no, but similarly wonders why?

Anyone who cares to debate with theists will draw from a number of disciplines in doing so.  But he isn't representing an alternative theory of everything.  Try to imagine what it would be like to be a thinking person with a variety of interests where theism is not one of them.  No, try harder.  We don't go around thinking "since the world had no creator .." or "since there is no holy arbiter of right and wrong..".  Those elements are entirely missing from our psyches - unless we were raised with a religious mindset and have only mostly thrown it off.

Ha ha.  Neither does the theist.  We do not walk around thinking, "Lord; lordy; lord; lord!  The lord!  Lord knows, lord is, lord is why.  Oh holy lord!!!  In our common day today it does not cross our minds either (even in most of our moral decisions).  God may never sever as the foundation of an argument (that would make it tautological), but god(s) may be the conclusion.  Most educated theist will argue with drawing from various sources including philosohpy (primarily plato and aristotle), theology (mainly Thomas Acquinas and Saint Augustine), literature, science, and so forth.

The belief system which so structures your worldview is entirely unnecessary.  It is possible of course.  It can even be laudable or beautiful, at least to some.  But it is entirely unnecessary.  If you can't see that these alternative world-views have their own pros and beauty that is only a mark of your own ignorance or bias.  If only the pious could avoid becoming pompous.  True faith requires humility.

Pot meet kettle?  I would contradict the statement that a belief system which structures your world view is unnecessary (as would plato, aristotle, kant, hume, locke, and nearly every other philosopher).  Suffice to say that structure is what gives value to any given thing.  If you do not believe me I have a bag of powder that used to be a top of the line TV worth $8k.  Never been used.  Let go of your belief system leading to world view of structure and buy the bag of powder for $4k from me (cause I like you).  Works like a charm (some assembly required).

---

Simple answer - Pleasure.  (Atheist = it does not please "me" to do those things.  Theist = It does not please "me" or "Him")

Do you deny that it pleases you to please Him?  Does it give you more pleasure to imagine you choose your actions to please Him for your sake or for His?

Indeed I may deny that it pleases me to please him.  A religion that consists of only things you like is as useful as a diet consisting of all the foods you like.  Just like you have to sacrifice what pleases you to please those around you, so to does pleasing Him not always please me.

I have added the answer in underlined italics above.

[downbeatplumb]

Can you clear this part up for me?  Are you saying the theist imagines their friend to be someone else while the atheist is restricted from doing so?

I am stating that in order for anyone to make moral decisions they must appeal to something which the atheist would consider imaginary. 

---

I don't see the need for any imaginary agent in moral decisions. 

By now it should have been pointed out to you, but this shows how far I've gotten in the thread so far.  Atheists vary a great deal in their self concept as much as anything else.  While the percentage that would agree with the part I've bolded is probably high, it is far from 100%.  The only thing you can count on with atheists is that we don't entertain a belief in gods.  Everything else varies

This was said earlier and is paradoxical to me.  I understand an atheist position based on lack of empirical evidence or lack of personal experience.  But if an atheist is willing to concede the existence of metaphysical things they cannot or have not experienced the Theist may then quote one CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow, "So we agree my theory is sound in principle and now we are just haggling over price."

---

[quote pid='948601' dateline='1432287355']
By using metaphysics you are attempting to move things out of the area of testable things. Metaphysical things can lead to interesting discussions like the nature of the mind which is currently filed under this BUT we know that what people refer to as mind exists. Even if it is only an impression. God however remains just speculation without any evidence for it or indeed any explanatory merit. It may be interesting to discuss but without any evidence it may as well be chatting about the nature of pixies.

Aren't you forgetting that for the theist there must be some self-centered justification for accepting a man in the sky?  Don't theists feel it is important to heed the man in the sky?  Is there any reason to think this feeling is any more durable than the feeling atheists have that harming another is repulsive?

I am not forgetting.  However, the theist accepts the existence of metaphysical things with out empirical evidence or personal experience.  The atheist does not (see portion above about haggling over price) and thereby may not contend "they" (something other than the physical being) exists or that "they" "feel".

---

The theist position is accepting metaphysical things that their belief tells them to believe without evidence. You would not lower your skepticism for any other faiths evidence to the same level or you'd believe them all. All you have done is show confirmation bias. 

But which one?  The one claiming to be the god of the bible - or the one that just keeps saying to kill them all?  (Please choose carefully.)

A great question.  For the theist the imaginary friend includes the self, the conscience, the voices, the personification of an inanimate object (think Wilson from Cast Away), and/or god(s).  For the Atheist the imaginary friend is the same with the exclusion of god(s).  Which again takes me back to the theory of the theist being sound in principle and now just haggling over price.

---

I have an inner voice that tells me things, it is me, I am not imaginary this is a manifestation of my thought processes.

Nothing to stop you from saying it, but you'd be wrong.  Atheism isn't a monolithic whole composed of essential stances.  Atheism is simply the response "no, I don't think I do" to the question "do you believe in god(s)?"  I've noticed theists have a hard time wrapping their heads around this point.

Invariably they do for the same reason the Atheist has a hard time wrapping their head around the yes response.  When the theist states yes the Atheist asks why.  In like kind the Theist recognizes the answer is no, but similarly wonders why?

Oh I understand why people choose to delude themselves to believe in gods. Either they just believe and have never really questioned it, they look at things with confirmation bias, belief may be part of the herd mentality or they may be mentally ill.(there are probably many other reasons that I've missed but they are never persuaded by evidence because there isn't any, in the end most believe because they want to.)

Anyone who cares to debate with theists will draw from a number of disciplines in doing so.  But he isn't representing an alternative theory of everything.  Try to imagine what it would be like to be a thinking person with a variety of interests where theism is not one of them.  No, try harder.  We don't go around thinking "since the world had no creator .." or "since there is no holy arbiter of right and wrong..".  Those elements are entirely missing from our psyches - unless we were raised with a religious mindset and have only mostly thrown it off.

Ha ha.  Neither does the theist.  We do not walk around thinking, "Lord; lordy; lord; lord!  The lord!  Lord knows, lord is, lord is why.  Oh holy lord!!!  In our common day today it does not cross our minds either (even in most of our moral decisions).  God may never sever as the foundation of an argument (that would make it tautological), but god(s) may be the conclusion.  Most educated theist will argue with drawing from various sources including philosohpy (primarily plato and aristotle), theology (mainly Thomas Acquinas and Saint Augustine), literature, science, and so forth.

Never with evidence which is what is required to have a proper debate. An argument is just that unless it is backed up.

The belief system which so structures your worldview is entirely unnecessary.  It is possible of course.  It can even be laudable or beautiful, at least to some.  But it is entirely unnecessary.  If you can't see that these alternative world-views have their own pros and beauty that is only a mark of your own ignorance or bias.  If only the pious could avoid becoming pompous.  True faith requires humility.

Pot meet kettle?  I would contradict the statement that a belief system which structures your world view is unnecessary (as would plato, aristotle, kant, hume, locke, and nearly every other philosopher).  Suffice to say that structure is what gives value to any given thing.  If you do not believe me I have a bag of powder that used to be a top of the line TV worth $8k.  Never been used.  Let go of your belief system leading to world view of structure and buy the bag of powder for $4k from me (cause I like you).  Works like a charm (some assembly required).

---

Are you on drugs?

Do you deny that it pleases you to please Him?  Does it give you more pleasure to imagine you choose your actions to please Him for your sake or for His?

Indeed I may deny that it pleases me to please him.  A religion that consists of only things you like is as useful as a diet consisting of all the foods you like.  Just like you have to sacrifice what pleases you to please those around you, so to does pleasing Him not always please me.

So you don't like your faith, interesting.


[/quote]

[Anima]

[quote pid='948601' dateline='1432287355']
By using metaphysics you are attempting to move things out of the area of testable things. Metaphysical things can lead to interesting discussions like the nature of the mind which is currently filed under this BUT we know that what people refer to as mind exists. Even if it is only an impression. God however remains just speculation without any evidence for it or indeed any explanatory merit. It may be interesting to discuss but without any evidence it may as well be chatting about the nature of pixies.

I would point you Descartes (one of the most prominent of skeptics).  He would agree with you regarding a metaphysical things existing even if it is only an impression.  That is the same argument he makes for God existing.

However, I would like to hold Atheist to a higher standard than accepting the existence of something as existing if it is only an impression.  Were I not to do so than I would be forced to argue (according to Euclid) that the imaginary voices in my head are as real as the imaginary voice from God in my head, which is as real as the voice from any other person or being in my head because I have an impression of them (at minimum) occurring in my head.

---

The theist position is accepting metaphysical things that their belief tells them to believe without evidence. You would not lower your skepticism for any other faiths evidence to the same level or you'd believe them all. All you have done is show confirmation bias.

I stated an imaginary friend.  I did not specify who that friend was though I may specify that a person may decided to designate that friend under a specific moniker.  He calls his god, He calls his Jimminy of Cricket fame, and He calls it his inner voice.


I have an inner voice that tells me things, it is me, I am not imaginary this is a manifestation of my thought processes.

Umm?  To claim you have an inner voice telling you things and that voice is you, under Atheistic thought as I understand it, would be an unfounded assertion.  Otherwise I may say, "I have an inner voice that tells me things and it is god.  He is not imaginary, this is a manifestation of his being in conjunction with my own."  Since he exists (at least in my mind) than he exists?  I maybe a theist, but I am a realistic one and I do not believe that argument for an instant.

Oh I understand why people choose to delude themselves to believe in gods. Either they just believe and have never really questioned it, they look at things with confirmation bias, belief may be part of the herd mentality or they may be mentally ill.(there are probably many other reasons that I've missed but they are never persuaded by evidence because there isn't any, in the end most believe because they want to.)

As I understand the common reason (though I confess there to be other reasons) for abandoning the existence of metaphysical things (including god) is to facilitate the doing of what we want as there is no longer a thing that we "should" (see Neitzche's ubermensch).

However, I should once again point out that your statement regarding evidence (which once again I take to mean explicit empirical evidence) excludes the existence of your own person (and any inner voice therein) as well as science as an entire field of knowledge (as science is deduction verified by induction.  That is to say a metaphysical idea verified by circumstantial empirical support of a metaphysical relationship, but not of cause and effect).

Never with evidence which is what is required to have a proper debate. An argument is just that unless it is backed up.

---

Are you on drugs?

Nope!

So you don't like your faith, interesting.

I like it as much as I like learning and exercise to develop and maintain my mind and body.  I am not in it for the excitement (you want that go watch a movie) or for the warm fuzzy feelings (you can get from oprah or you local house of exotic artistic expression of body glitter, bikinis, and pole acrobatics.)

[/quote]

[pocaracas]

FFS!!! GUYS!!
Use the BBcode editor! Click the rightmost button directly above the text box when replying to a post.
Nobody can understand what's going on!

[Anima]

FFS!!! GUYS!!
Use the BBcode editor! Click the rightmost button directly above the text box when replying to a post.
Nobody can understand what's going on!

Apologies.  I am still new to forums in general.  Do you mean the buttons near the"reply" button?  In which case the one furthest to the right which I see is the "report" button.

Is there a way you can give an image of the button you are referring too?