I like to keep things tidy. As such, I’ve split and hid my response to the individuals prescribed.
(In response to Esquilax)
Typical evolutionary evaluation; I think that sums up how I feel about “moral law” sometimes (as I mentioned earlier). But I can’t help but shake the feeling that I’m missing something here, something simple. I think my contention lies with the fact that it’s simply taken as a matter of fact that “no other society like ours could thrive without our set of moral intuition.” (intuition, standard, call it what you want). I can’t help but feel like this is somehow reasoning in circles.
I can’t put my finger on it, but time will tell I suppose?
I don’t know how you feel about David Berlinksi, but I think this quote is rather apt.
“All the laws of heaven and earth are unable to prevent man from his crimes. Surely relaxing the laws of heaven and earth shall not dispose man to better behavior.’ That seems to me self-evident.”
It is easy to shirk any responsibility, secular or non a like.
I didn’t wish to imply you were, but in some cases I feel when an atheist makes a case they can come across as a little hurtful, especially to those people who are “new to the game.”
Ooh! This brings us to an interesting point. I wonder whether we should pick this conversation up else where because it seems to be a HUGE tangent to the current topic. How would you feel about a private correspondence?
Interestingly enough, I was the one who brought up this same point to a friend of mine. For a while it seemed dubious, but I came across something that perhaps shed a bit of light on the subject. Forgive me if I’m vague, I’ve only just started Aristotle (also, I’m sorry if I sound like a pompous ass for “dropping names.” I’ll readily admit my shortcomings, and this idea I’m presenting may not be fully formed.)
The psychopaths have the potential to function like an ordinary human being but have a mental deficiency making them unable. Children have this potential but don’t have the mental wherewithal to act it out. The point is that whether or not you have the ability doesn’t mean that you should; compulsion is not derived from capability.
Also, I’m 22, I am an uncle, I’ve spent a good deal of time around young kids. I can verify first hand how psychopathic they can be; my nephew pushed his sister down, put his knee on her neck and began tearing her hair out, all because she lifted up one of his toys! Kid got the spanking of his life.
(in response to Shaman)
Sorry Shaman, I feel like we were excluding you from the conversation.
There’s certainly groups who see things as being “morally relative.” No doubt; culture has certainly changed our perceptions of right and wrong, but wouldn’t you agree we have made “moral progress?” And if we are progress, towards what exactly? Typically theists response is that this is an example of moving towards a moral standard that exists apart from human ingenuity (I believe this was C.S Lewis’ position).
How do you feel about that; what’s your take on that?
(In response to Esquilax)
(September 3, 2014 at 2:23 pm)Esquilax Wrote: In some respects we have a moral obligation even under evolutionary morality, it's just that the obligation is to our fellow evolved animals, rather than to some distant supernatural force. Our survival, generally speaking, is contingent upon the health of the group, and certainly our current level of comfort and convenience is due to the society we have built together. We're obliged to keep it all running if we want to reap the benefits of it, and to propagate charitable memes as a method of causing it to run better.
Typical evolutionary evaluation; I think that sums up how I feel about “moral law” sometimes (as I mentioned earlier). But I can’t help but shake the feeling that I’m missing something here, something simple. I think my contention lies with the fact that it’s simply taken as a matter of fact that “no other society like ours could thrive without our set of moral intuition.” (intuition, standard, call it what you want). I can’t help but feel like this is somehow reasoning in circles.
I can’t put my finger on it, but time will tell I suppose?
(September 3, 2014 at 2:23 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Now, one might be tempted to argue that it's easy to shirk that obligation, to which my immediate response is that it's even easier to shirk a christian one; that's why we have so many different belief systems. At least under secular models the punishment is immediate- either social or legal consequences- and proportionate to the crime.
I don’t know how you feel about David Berlinksi, but I think this quote is rather apt.
“All the laws of heaven and earth are unable to prevent man from his crimes. Surely relaxing the laws of heaven and earth shall not dispose man to better behavior.’ That seems to me self-evident.”
It is easy to shirk any responsibility, secular or non a like.
(September 3, 2014 at 2:23 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I really don't mean to come across as combative…
I didn’t wish to imply you were, but in some cases I feel when an atheist makes a case they can come across as a little hurtful, especially to those people who are “new to the game.”
(September 3, 2014 at 2:23 pm)Esquilax Wrote: This is presuppositionalism, and I find it to be the enemy of rational thought…
Ooh! This brings us to an interesting point. I wonder whether we should pick this conversation up else where because it seems to be a HUGE tangent to the current topic. How would you feel about a private correspondence?
(September 3, 2014 at 2:23 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And my immediate response is, tell that to psychopaths. Or to any individual human placed within a situation where cheating without the possibility of repercussions arises. You can say we're compelled to be moral, but that's just not true, even as a general rule. Any person thinking of a compulsion to morality has clearly never spent a lot of time around young children, for example. The truth is, our society plays a much larger role in our better natures than you'd think.
Interestingly enough, I was the one who brought up this same point to a friend of mine. For a while it seemed dubious, but I came across something that perhaps shed a bit of light on the subject. Forgive me if I’m vague, I’ve only just started Aristotle (also, I’m sorry if I sound like a pompous ass for “dropping names.” I’ll readily admit my shortcomings, and this idea I’m presenting may not be fully formed.)
The psychopaths have the potential to function like an ordinary human being but have a mental deficiency making them unable. Children have this potential but don’t have the mental wherewithal to act it out. The point is that whether or not you have the ability doesn’t mean that you should; compulsion is not derived from capability.
Also, I’m 22, I am an uncle, I’ve spent a good deal of time around young kids. I can verify first hand how psychopathic they can be; my nephew pushed his sister down, put his knee on her neck and began tearing her hair out, all because she lifted up one of his toys! Kid got the spanking of his life.
(in response to Shaman)
(September 3, 2014 at 2:43 pm)ShaMan Wrote: I don't have a problem with evil. "Evil" changes with the direction of the wind. We make it up as we go along, and I've chosen not to play the game.
Once upon a time, homosexuality was considered 'evil' and slavery was considered 'good'. Now, they've switched roles. What is called evil today will be called good tomorrow and vice-versa. It's almost as though our morals are evolving along with us
Sorry Shaman, I feel like we were excluding you from the conversation.
There’s certainly groups who see things as being “morally relative.” No doubt; culture has certainly changed our perceptions of right and wrong, but wouldn’t you agree we have made “moral progress?” And if we are progress, towards what exactly? Typically theists response is that this is an example of moving towards a moral standard that exists apart from human ingenuity (I believe this was C.S Lewis’ position).
How do you feel about that; what’s your take on that?
Call me Josh, it's fine.
