(March 18, 2016 at 6:01 am)truth_seeker Wrote: Exactly my point. In an atheistic worldview, there is no objective morality. There is no standard. There is no "should" of anything, as you correctly mentioned.
One's own sense of empathy and consciousness does not entail any "should"s or standards in others. It's only your opinion, not binding to others in any way.
So if I was the disabled person in the OP scenario (and I know people in this situation), I would be very very very seriously threatened. Because its all relative, and "it depends", so each person I meet is an entirely open canvas of infinite possible moralities, because (in this world view) there is no independent objective morality. There is no "should" of anything, as you mentioned, and its all open for discussion.
(March 18, 2016 at 6:01 am)truth_seeker Wrote: This is my entire argument. I do not say that an atheist can not feel empathy. I'm saying that, by their own world view, empathy in situations as appalling as the scenario in OP breaks down into a "debatable", "there is no should", relative issue.
But you cut off the rest of my post:
(March 18, 2016 at 3:20 am)Mathilda Wrote: In terms of naked self interest, it is better for me, and for everyone else, that we live in a society where the most vulnerable are looked after because none of us know that we aren't going to be joining them. This is why people take out insurance policies.
It is for this reason that disabled people are not "very very very seriously threatened".
(March 18, 2016 at 6:01 am)truth_seeker Wrote: While for a standard, independent, outside source of morality (i.e. objective morality), no body would even begin to imagine pondering on this, and is completely out of question. And because of that, if I was the disabled person in the OP scenario, I would feel completely safe and can relax and become an effective member of society, which also eventually benefits everybody.
You are making assumptions about what this hypothetical outside source of morality actually is. Not that an objective morality can even exist, it's not possible. But if one could, how do you know that it wouldn't be something similar to the laws in the Old Testament? The paralysed person in your hypothetical situation would be even more at risk.
Historically speaking our societies are more caring and safer than they have ever been in the past. And if we want to continue this trend or to maintain what we have, then we should look after the vulnerable.
