|
Moral Acts
|
 (January 11, 2017 at 12:48 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(January 10, 2017 at 8:37 am)chimp3 Wrote: Name one moral act that can not be accomplished without religion. Every moral principle. All religion is man made.Religion borrowed morality from nature.
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!
 (January 11, 2017 at 1:04 am)chimp3 Wrote:(January 11, 2017 at 12:48 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Name one moral principle that atheists didn't adopt from religion. Do you think morality is objective then?
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh (January 11, 2017 at 1:09 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(January 11, 2017 at 1:04 am)chimp3 Wrote: Every moral principle. All religion is man made.Religion borrowed morality from nature. No. Not irrational though. We must argue, debate, and come to common agreement about what is moral. Human well being is a good starting point.
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!
A morality based upon human wellbeing would be an objective morality.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(January 11, 2017 at 1:25 am)Rhythm Wrote: A morality based upon human wellbeing would be an objective morality.Unless your definition of human well being is subjective.
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!
 (January 11, 2017 at 1:25 am)Rhythm Wrote: A morality based upon human wellbeing would be an objective morality. Only if you first agree on an objective way of measuring wellbeing. Otherwise, it's a very vague and subjective concept. Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists. Index of useful threads and discussions Index of my best videos Quickstart guide to the forum 
I guess a ridiculous but anything close to accurately objective way to measure happiness would be to find the average amount of serotonin released in a happy human being's day and if the serotonin released in another person's body in a day is greater than or equal to that then that person could be seen as "objectively" doing well. Hehe
RE: Moral Acts
January 11, 2017 at 6:13 am
(This post was last modified: January 11, 2017 at 6:16 am by robvalue.)
Sure, that would be one way. At that point, you could develop a system of objective morality. It's just that the system would be no use to anyone who doesn't agree with it; that is the problem. It's why there is no problem agreeing standard ways of measuring length and so forth, because it's practical to have the same system. To "use your system" would require an authority to enforce it, just like all moral systems. It's not a criticism of your idea, which is actually quite inventive.
And of course, although practical, it's very simplistic and it wouldn't be concerned with how exactly the person ends up in that state. Plugging someone into a "happiness machine" would then be equivalent to, or even better than maintaining a good quality of life for them. This points to the larger problem of how exactly you go about maintaining wellbeing, and not just the wellbeing itself. Morality is fucking complicated. Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists. Index of useful threads and discussions Index of my best videos Quickstart guide to the forum (January 11, 2017 at 1:25 am)Rhythm Wrote: A morality based upon human wellbeing would be an objective morality.It would be simple for Catholic Lady, Rob, and I to sit at a table , have a nice lunch , and agree upon a standard for human well being. Objective, Subjective...what difference does it make/
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!
RE: Moral Acts
January 11, 2017 at 6:21 am
(This post was last modified: January 11, 2017 at 6:24 am by robvalue.)
Sure, for things we all agree on, there is no problem. Most of us could probably hammer out most points with agreement.
But suddenly introduce someone from another culture with radically different ideas, and what do you do? Tell them they are wrong? No one has this authority. They would turn around and tell us we're wrong as well. It would be a matter of starting from first principles, and if people don't agree on those, there isn't anything that can be done except to continue to debate. One group announcing they "are right" is just excluding others from the discussion. Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists. Index of useful threads and discussions Index of my best videos Quickstart guide to the forum |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
