RE: Where do atheists get their morality from?
September 4, 2012 at 2:57 pm
(This post was last modified: September 4, 2012 at 2:58 pm by stephenmills1000.)
DP-
This proposal that through our evolution we can now better evaluate moral issues is highly dubious. The fact is there is no metric in existence that can tell us if we're doing a 'better' job or not, objectively. In fact, thanks to the advent of technology, I'm sure we can marshal such statistical evidence that you have placed such a premium on, and find that if anything we've become more efficient at killing people in the last 2 centuries, citing the enormous body counts of several regimes during this period. Statistics and numbers will only tell you what 'is,' not what 'ought' to be- that requires a consciousness to read something into the presented data, much like your business example. So I am not yet ready to buy into this idea that we are now somehow better off than we used to be, for if morals are personal-relative as you admit, it's merely personal opinion. Even your example where you would obtain data regarding productivity loss and hospital costs, is rife with personal bias based on your presumption these things are altogether "bad" or "evil." So your reasoning there is circular, inescapably so, for the only justification you would be able to present would be that which you have already presumed your opinion about due to values and duties being subjective.
I'm afraid this does lend itself to an "anything goes" system. There has been nothing presented to objectively justify otherwise, only reasons found arbitrary. The "Social Contract" is not necessarily obligating- there's nothing to say people cannot go off on their own and begin their own society with a different set of values- who then are you to say they are "wrong?" What if precisely half the world felt rape and slavery is ok? Who is right?
Your assertions concerning the origin of "Do unto others..." and how Muslims may 'feel' about their law does nothing to undermine the truth of the law, or one's obligation to it. That would commit the genetic fallacy.
Ultimately, this view places a great deal of faith on mankind to "do the right thing." Incidentally, I have faith we will, for I believe God has written the moral code on all our hearts (Romans 2:14-15), but what assurance does the non-believer have?
You say you believe morals are personally-relative, but honestly I think your backpedalling and appeals to authorities of statistics and/or social contracts betrays this feeling, and that you really feel objective moral values do exist!
This proposal that through our evolution we can now better evaluate moral issues is highly dubious. The fact is there is no metric in existence that can tell us if we're doing a 'better' job or not, objectively. In fact, thanks to the advent of technology, I'm sure we can marshal such statistical evidence that you have placed such a premium on, and find that if anything we've become more efficient at killing people in the last 2 centuries, citing the enormous body counts of several regimes during this period. Statistics and numbers will only tell you what 'is,' not what 'ought' to be- that requires a consciousness to read something into the presented data, much like your business example. So I am not yet ready to buy into this idea that we are now somehow better off than we used to be, for if morals are personal-relative as you admit, it's merely personal opinion. Even your example where you would obtain data regarding productivity loss and hospital costs, is rife with personal bias based on your presumption these things are altogether "bad" or "evil." So your reasoning there is circular, inescapably so, for the only justification you would be able to present would be that which you have already presumed your opinion about due to values and duties being subjective.
I'm afraid this does lend itself to an "anything goes" system. There has been nothing presented to objectively justify otherwise, only reasons found arbitrary. The "Social Contract" is not necessarily obligating- there's nothing to say people cannot go off on their own and begin their own society with a different set of values- who then are you to say they are "wrong?" What if precisely half the world felt rape and slavery is ok? Who is right?
Your assertions concerning the origin of "Do unto others..." and how Muslims may 'feel' about their law does nothing to undermine the truth of the law, or one's obligation to it. That would commit the genetic fallacy.
Ultimately, this view places a great deal of faith on mankind to "do the right thing." Incidentally, I have faith we will, for I believe God has written the moral code on all our hearts (Romans 2:14-15), but what assurance does the non-believer have?
You say you believe morals are personally-relative, but honestly I think your backpedalling and appeals to authorities of statistics and/or social contracts betrays this feeling, and that you really feel objective moral values do exist!
