Atheism and morality

[Angrboda]

Why do you think I give rat's arse what the Stanford said? Some other twit decided to quote its definition of morality and I merely noted that it accorded with mine and then showed that twit why such a thing would require a god.

You can define morality how you want. Define it as a pad of butter if you want. You won't be addressing me. For I have defined it as that which instructs with inescapable rational authority. It seems to be something of this nature that moral philosophers are concerning themselves with. Would you like some big names? YOu seem to crave the need for an authority figure. How about Kant? That do you?

You need to slow down a bit and actually read what is being said. I was actually in agreement with you and arguing the irrelevance of the SEP entry. But apparently your brain is only capable of seeing in black and white, and since I've opposed you before, that must mean that anything I say to you now is in opposition to you.

But you say that this reason would be 'instrumental' and not 'moral'. That's question begging in this context. One cannot simply stipulate that moral reasons are not instrumental reasons: they may be. Granted, they do not appear to be.

I was unclear. Let me restate. Things that I have a compelling moral reason to comply with are subjectively different from those that appeal to me because of their instrumental utility in combination with our compelling self interests, the former being what you refer to as "moral phenomena." Now, I presume that, apart from your argument and its conclusions, you are not claiming to have direct knowledge of moral reality (what others refer to as objective morality), and if not, please state otherwise. So the only actual direct access we have is to moral sensations, or the phenomenal aspect of morality. Why do these reasons from a god, which have clear instrumental utility if known, appear as moral phenomena and not simply as compelling reasons of personal self-interest possessed of no palpable moral character?

(Waiting in the wings is the question of why these reasons are compelling if we don't actually believe in the existence of an afterlife, but I'll wait. Note however that your second syllogism doesn't seem to offer, in itself, any reason to prefer the formulation "a vengeful god who has control over your afterlife" to "an unforgiving and inflexible karmic law which will condemn you to an eternity of incarnations filled with suffering if you do not behave morally, as communicated by the uncreated and eternally existing Vedas." In particular, it's possible the Vedas issue from an agent and we are simply ignorant of their true source, so arguing that they require an agent is ineffective. The moral instruction contained in the traditional Indian metaphysics appears to offer an equivalent and equally rationally compelling reason for complying; why prefer one to the other?)