RE: The difference between ethical atheism and nihlism is that ethical atheists have more faith
March 14, 2013 at 2:25 pm
@jstrodel
You seem to be confusing the possibility of an objective or absolute morality as the only way a good person can be honest with themselves about what is truely good or right. That is to say, that in the end, long after the world is gone, why would anything that we do actually matter unless it was grounded in some absolute truth of what is objectively right or wrong.
For example, if I killed somebody, why would it ultimately matter? If all we are is thinking beings arbitrarily going through space and time (or space-time : ) ), how could anything we do really matter if not grounded in some teleological order or law? You seem to be questioning the relevance of moral actions of the present compared to their relevance long after we are gone.
To suggest that a murder is not objectively wrong in the immediate present if it is not teleologically affirmed absolutely doesn't quite make sense. Especially not to the family of the victem. The relevance of the act in question is relative to the time of occurence. This is what makes the idea of Absolute Morality difficult to affirm, not to mention the lack of any universal morality which supports the concept of moral relativity.
Think about space time as an analogy. It is all relative. Morality is relative to the time and place of the event being placed into the moral filter. There is no absolute time, and there is no absolute morality. The history of mankind illustrates this perfectly. The absence of absolute time doesn't allow us to choose a different continuum any more than the absence of absolute moralty gives us the right to kill whomever we please. The ability to reflect on our thoughts grants us that makes us human. The desire to ask my self why before I act on a thought or instinct. We make words like "right" or "wrong" to describe our conclusions. These should not be confused with rules as nothing of the sort is absolute.
I'm new here, and it appears that I may have posted this in another place incorrectly, and it also seems that my name is being listed as saying something I did not because of how I incorrectly posted. The above was the only thing written by me.
You seem to be confusing the possibility of an objective or absolute morality as the only way a good person can be honest with themselves about what is truely good or right. That is to say, that in the end, long after the world is gone, why would anything that we do actually matter unless it was grounded in some absolute truth of what is objectively right or wrong.
For example, if I killed somebody, why would it ultimately matter? If all we are is thinking beings arbitrarily going through space and time (or space-time : ) ), how could anything we do really matter if not grounded in some teleological order or law? You seem to be questioning the relevance of moral actions of the present compared to their relevance long after we are gone.
To suggest that a murder is not objectively wrong in the immediate present if it is not teleologically affirmed absolutely doesn't quite make sense. Especially not to the family of the victem. The relevance of the act in question is relative to the time of occurence. This is what makes the idea of Absolute Morality difficult to affirm, not to mention the lack of any universal morality which supports the concept of moral relativity.
Think about space time as an analogy. It is all relative. Morality is relative to the time and place of the event being placed into the moral filter. There is no absolute time, and there is no absolute morality. The history of mankind illustrates this perfectly. The absence of absolute time doesn't allow us to choose a different continuum any more than the absence of absolute moralty gives us the right to kill whomever we please. The ability to reflect on our thoughts grants us that makes us human. The desire to ask my self why before I act on a thought or instinct. We make words like "right" or "wrong" to describe our conclusions. These should not be confused with rules as nothing of the sort is absolute.
I'm new here, and it appears that I may have posted this in another place incorrectly, and it also seems that my name is being listed as saying something I did not because of how I incorrectly posted. The above was the only thing written by me.
