ChadWooters Wrote:I'd like to address your specific comments, but in the meantime I thought to share this video. It seems old, but it is new to me. And I thought it generally reflected my opinion about that the logical conclusion of atheism is moral nihilism (in addition to other forms of nihilism).
That was a thought-provoking video. Thanks for sharing.
I suppose that it is my duty to raise objections to the video if you think that video shows secular morality to be nihilistic. I'll make that my next project in the next few days.
Quote: At the same time, I anticipate finding a defense of some objective morality, with which I disagree. As stated above, my current opinion is that it is subjective, but not arbitrary.
Ah, ok. I wrongly thought that since you believe in a theistic god, it then follows that you believe such a being has established an *objective* standard for morality. In terms of what you actually believe (non-arbitrary subjective morality) I would say I agree. People can just about always justify why they think something is right or wrong, and out duty is to work together in order to discern what the best way of acting is. There is nothing arbitrary about our actions.
Quote:I think you are still stuck on the idea that I am defending a basis for an objective morality. I am not. Indeed, my revision of Premise I is subjective. It refers to the moral agent’s judgment about what they believe they should do.
*crumples strawman and throws it over his shoulder*
Gotcha!
Quote:Here is my point. You cannot escape your freedom. Now based on this existential choice, how can you select a moral standard that provides a useful reference? To what can you point as a consistent measure with which you can evaluate your actions and which if applied as a common standard would be universally just? Personally, I believe the Love of Christ, whether real or imagined, satisfies this criterion.
I tend to go with Kantian philosophy when I need a reference. The two main methods Kant devised use 1) the individual whose going to be affected by your action as a reference and 2) a universal outlook on the action in question as a reference:
1. An action x is morally right if, and only if, the agent(s) being affected by x are an end in themselves and not the means to an end.
2. An action x is morally right if, and only if, x can be willed to be a universal principle.
(1) seems pretty intuitive: you can tell a joke and make everyone laugh except for the person that was the means to making the joke funny (i.e. the joke depended on e.g. painting that individual in a bad light) which usually makes us feel bad for that individual. The reference is the individual and that determines whether the action is moral or not.
(2) is saying that we can act a certain way only if we allow others act just like that. I could start knocking my shoulder against everyone I walk past but that would mean they wouldn't be doing anything morally wrong if they did it to me or anyone else. The reference here is viewing the action on a global scale and seeing if it's reasonable at all to allow such an action to be universally applied by everyone.
In terms of Jesus' love being a reference... sure, why not. I mean, if the theist gets their moral code off the pedestal (not saying you personally or that you ever came across that way) and places it beneath the pedestal in the atmosphere of subjectivity, then their moral code is just as valid as anyone else's. In other words, I respect your philosophy, but it's nothing more than that. There's no real weight to it if it's not an objective standard we're talking about, which means that for the greater purposes of our discussion (usually leading back to "does God exist?") morality is a moot subject, as it seems Mankind governs that realm as opposed to God.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
