Toaster strudel alliance takes on drugs, atheists and liberalism

[Darkstar]

Could you just accept for a moment there are some situations in which empathy is not the most important virtue? Real life is different from Oprah, you know? If you go to work, you work 60 hours a week to feed your family, what guides you most of the time? Is it empathy? Or are there many, many virtues that work together. There is no one that is more important than another. They are virtues.

You used working 60 hours a week to feed your family as an example of something that doesn't need empathy. Don't you think that the primary motivation to care for them comes from empathy? Unless you meant that empathy wouldn't get the work done, in which case you'd be right.

It is the epitome of liberal sophistry to say that empathy is the only virtue necessary in life. [/quote[
Good thing I never said anything like that.
[quote='jstrodel' pid='416167' dateline='1363553357']

Naturally, I disagree. Justice, when morailty is severely breached, would often not be considered moral outside of the domain of justice, I should note.

I am not sure what this means. You still havn't grounded the authority of empathy in anything other than feelings.

Locking someone up would usually be considered immoral. Now, if you are putting a violent criminal in prision (i.e. justice) then it wouldn't be immoral. Humans are not machines, nor should they act like they are. That is why some feelings matter. But it isn't just that. Empathy can be used to asses how much harm or help an action would cause to someone by placing yourself in their situation.

I don't think I am getting through to you. I understand human rights are important, that is why I am making this argument: your belief system can't defend against them.

You're right, they can't defend against the concept of human rights. Human rights were defined by humans, they can't exist apart from humans to create them. Just because they are a concept developed by humans does no instantly invalidate them (although you will probably disagree).

You will need to define "authority" then.

If someone says "You cannot murder", authority is what gives the statement weight that is greater than an opinion.

Now it is even more vaguely defined than before. Should I say that "authority" is the combination of empathy and reason, then?

Okay, so how do you determine exactly how much authority they have?

By comparing their actions to a measure of Christian ethics. If their actions are good, they have authority. They also have authority just because they are in certain elected positions. But at a certain point, they lose that authority.

So you pressupose that Christian ethics are the ultimate moral code. What exactly are Christian ethics, anyway? Does it contain all of that terrible OT stuff too?

How does this explain why people should accept their biological behavior. If naturalism is true, how does evolutionary traits that encode morality carry greater weight than evolutionary traits that encode appendix's or cancer? What is the standard that you use to separate them, and how could someone else not make another standard?

I would argue that biological evidence in favor of evolutionary processes that formed people to be moral people could be evidence of God's imparting people with a cognitive nature that could deal with moral problems. I am not sure about that.

Did you ignore the part where I said:

It should be noted that morality didn't evolve purely out of genetic change, but from societal constructs that would, you know, keep it from becoming a free for all where the greediest and most selfish prevailed.

Where do the rights come from? Did they exist before the constitution? Was there a time in which they didn't exist? Are the rights people opinions or do they refer to something else?

Rights sort of come from the government. At least in the sense that they are the thing that is supposed to protect your rights. They can technically take away your rights at any time, though this does not mean they are justified in doing it (and there might be riots). Historically, I'm not sure if they existed before the constitution (it depends on what is defined as a right). Human rights didn't exist before humans, at least. You could call them opinions if you wanted, but there are strong reasons supporting their existence that are seperate fromn people's feelings (society would eventually fall apart without them, greatly reducing most people's chances for survival...that or we'd all live under a tyrannical dictatorship).

I don't worship the founding fathers just because I agree that human rights are good. The difference between us is that you think the founding fathers need to be like religious thinkers, whereas I don't think religion is necessary.

But you are elevating the opinions of the founding fathers to be above other human opinions. What makes them more authoritative? Why are the founding fathers more important than say, the leaders of France in the 14th century? What makes the founding fathers so special that they are able to define, absolutely, the nature of human rights?

Nothing makes them special in the regard you say. A talking chicken could have come up with human rights and I would still agree that it is a good ides. Then again, a talking chicken would be pretty special...

If you were God, wouldn't you reveal yourself in the open? Wouldn't you make it easy for people to follow you?

Yeah...so why doesn't god do that? Or are you saying he does so through religious "authority"? There are some theists at AF who aren't too fond of the Roman Catholic Church.