(July 19, 2010 at 1:30 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Just to move the conversation away from slavery for a second.
My take on theistic morality is that it is inevitably lesser than atheist morality.
When a theist does a good deed often it is to please, god or because they are afraid that 'god is watching' and will go to hell if they dont make up for some past misdemeaner.
This means that any "good" act they do is tainted with their desire to please or appease their god.
When an atheist does a good deed it is because they are acting in a moral way without the threatened stick of damnation and without the hope of pleaseing a god.
This makes the act more meaningful in my eyes.
Even within this view, though, would you agree that to realistically determine which acts are more "meaningful" one would need to know all the motivations for an action? In other words, a "good" act by an atheist might not be motivated by a desire to please God but it may very well be motivated by a desire to please someone else or to please oneself. In such a case, wouldn't that bring the meaningfulness of the act to the same level as a "good" act by a theist and render inaccurate your conclusion that theistic morality is "inevitably" lesser than atheist morality?
