Are some theists afraid of atheists?

[Neo-Scholastic]

If we both agree that there are, in principle moral facts, then any dispute would only be an epistemological one given a common acknowledgment that values have some kind of ontological status. As for me, I have not seen a reasonable defense of value realism coming from atheists. On AF there seems to be a universal denial of nearly all kinds of realism in favor of nominalism. Correct me if I am wrong but based on prior conversations I took you for a nominalist/conceptualist. If that is not the case then I would be very much interested in how you could justify any kind of realism, including value realist, without making reference to transcendence.

What have you been reading?

With all due respect, I have been participating on AF for almost 4 years compared to you 3 months. I have a pretty good idea of what the dominant philosophical positions are although I sometimes forget what any individual advocates.

[The Grand Nudger]

Let’s start with some basic illustrative examples:

A Chevy Nova is a car.
A Corvette is a car.
Every car is worth $20,000.
Therefore, a Chevy Nova and a Corvette are worth $20,000.

Bill is a human being.
Mary’s unborn child is a human being.
Every human being has absolute value.
Therefore, both Bill and Mary’s unborn child have absolute value.

Hmmm…let’s also take another quick look at empathy towards other human beings. Are we talking about empathy only for the immediate pain and suffering of others or must we also consider their long term good? A child may feel very hurt and humiliated by being disciplined but his future self would be thankful for appropriate correction. Similarly, do we have moral obligations to human beings who do not even exist yet? Are we obligated to protect the environment and preserving culture for future generations?

All you guys are doing is expressing a personal and cultural preference. There is nothing particularly rational about the claims as currently being presented.

You disagree with them, but even in the amateurish caricatures you present...they are rational expositions whose flaw, is that the propositions contained therein are arguably wrong, not that they are invalid reasoning.  

If a nova and a vette were both cars, and if all cars cost 20k, then the nova and the vette -would- cost 20k.  That would be a true conclusion by valid reasoning.  If bill was a human being and marys child was a human being and all human beings had absolute value then both bill and marys unborn child would have absolute value.  

Immediate pain and suffering or long term suffering..there's no reason to limit oneself to one or the other.  A fully informed moral consideration would probably need reference to both. That's called a compromise from exclusively sub-optimal fields, btw.  Do a little wrong today to stave of a big wrong tomorrow.  Slap on the wrist in the present to prevent electrocution in the future.  Humiliation today to prevent misery tomorrow.  A person may, for any number of reasons, get the severity of either particular wrong, but the reason for doing so is cut and dry and very much a rational process.  If doing x today could prevent y tommorrow, and y was worse than x - then among that field of sub-optimal choices x stands out as what we colloquially call "the lesser of two evils".  

As to your questions, that would depend, rationally, on ones moral framework and propositions....there can be no answer that would be consistently true of every respective and disparate framework.  In mine, yes, though neither answer can be taken absolutely and in every instance.  Do we have a moral obligation to preserve the environment, as in..a place for people to live..yes.  Does that extend to every jot and tittle thereof, including the harmful or lethal shit?  No.  In the case of the good shit, if preserving it meant our own destruction, no.  The same would be true of culture.  In some cases I would say that it would be nice or even a practical necessity if some of us went above and beyond, but I wouldn't assign an obligation in the absolute in a vacuum to such vague questions...because I simply couldn't...rationally.

---

If we both agree that there are, in principle moral facts, then any dispute would only be an epistemological one given a common acknowledgment that values have some kind of ontological status. As for me, I have not seen a reasonable defense of value realism coming from atheists. On AF there seems to be a universal denial of nearly all kinds of realism in favor of nominalism. Correct me if I am wrong but based on prior conversations I took you for a nominalist/conceptualist. If that is not the case then I would be very much interested in how you could justify any kind of realism, including value realist, without making reference to transcendence.

I first seek to establish that there is something very real that all moral systems concern themselves with.  The subject of morality, something that can be referred to as a basoic moral fact of a great many matters - as it were.  You could call it transcendent, but probably not transcendent in the manner you'd hope for.   That there is a demonstrable and objective reason for any given thing being wrong..across cultures and despite their contradictions in their assessments thereof.    

Maybe I am missing something but I am trying. Kiel is saying that if people acting on the assumption that everyone had equal valve simply because they are human. That's fine but is not better than a Christian saying because people are made in the image of God. Both statements rest on unsupported claims. In his case he calls for a rationally consistent evaluation between human beings. That's not saying much. He hasn't shown why human beings are existentally equal other than appealing to empathy. And I do not see how that in anyway undermines my earlier demonstration. He's arguing in a circle.

Simply because they're human is probably the laziest assessment of human value I've ever seen...but you know what, that would be enough, wouldn't it?  Both statements rest on unsupported claims...really?  Because, last I checked, I could support the claim that somebody was a human being............this "image of god" shit, along with "god"...not quite as easy to demonstrate, is it?

[Harry Nevis]

Let’s start with some basic illustrative examples:

A Chevy Nova is a car.
A Corvette is a car.
Every car is worth $20,000.
Therefore, a Chevy Nova and a Corvette are worth $20,000.

Bill is a human being.
Mary’s unborn child is a human being.

Nope.  Not a human being.  A parasite.

Next?

[Catholic_Lady]

Let’s start with some basic illustrative examples:

A Chevy Nova is a car.
A Corvette is a car.
Every car is worth $20,000.
Therefore, a Chevy Nova and a Corvette are worth $20,000.

Bill is a human being.
Mary’s unborn child is a human being.

Nope.  Not a human being.  A parasite.

Next?

Good thing I've got my parasite's ashes in an urn in my living room.

[The Grand Nudger]

Careful, Neo might show up and deride your emotional and cultural response to that comment. He's of the opinion that a rational moral conclusion like "Only a dick would call my unborn child a parasite" can;t be grounded in such trivialities.

Perhaps we should consult magic book, so that we have a transcendental answer as to whether or not it;s okay for someone to say such things, an answer not tied to the vagueries of whatever value you place on that child - that's a moral irrelevance - what really counts is whether or not the child mattered to "god".

[Neo-Scholastic]

It is not simply a matter of epistemological limits, like predicting outcomes and imagining intentions, or though choices, like the street car problem. In all of the above you are making moral evaluations without first supporting the framework within which you make them. Of course my examples were ridiculous! They were meant to demonstrate the importance of supplying warranted premises. You mention being logically consistent about how a generic human should be treated without reference to what it even means to be human or what it means to cause harm. You also keep mentioning empathy as if I had not already definitively shown that empathy is not a rational principle just because you prefer it so. Reasoning from an irrational premise cannot make the conclusion rational. That should be as obvious to you as the silly claim that something is true just because it's in the bible.

---

Let’s start with some basic illustrative examples:...

Bill is a human being.
Mary’s unborn child is a human being.

Nope.  Not a human being.  A parasite.

Next?

That opinion is contrary to basic biology. If you disagree you can take it up with science.

[The Grand Nudger]

It is not simply a matter of epistemological limits, like predicting outcomes and imagining intentions, or though choices, like the street car problem. In all of the above you are making moral evaluations without first supporting the framework within which you make them.  Of course my examples were ridiculous! They were meant to demonstrate the importance of supplying warranted premises. You mention being logically consistent about how a generic human should be treated without reference to what it even means to be human or what it means to cause harm. You also keep mentioning empathy as if I had not already definitively shown that empathy is not a rational principle just because you prefer it so. Reasoning from an irrational premise cannot make the conclusion rational. That should be as obvious to you as the silly claim that something is true just because it's in the bible.

You really aren't paying attention at all.  I told you at the outset that I didn't reason from empathy, or apply empathy as a rational principle.  I even juxtaposed it -against- reason by calling it moral intuition.  I simply accept that empathy is, at least, a useful tool that provides a similar practical effect to any moral reasoning....and that any objection to it;s utility or validity in reaching moral conclusions as having been "evolved for x" is equally an objection to my rational faculties. That, additionally, your attempt to discredit it as a instrumental goods- by way of reference to someones assessment of your value to themselves couldn't possibly describe all empathetic impulse or assessment. Personally, I don't think it describes empathy in the least.

In short, that you couldn;t have been more wrong if you tried, and boy did you try.

However, if a persons moral framework specifically referenced their feelings of empathy - if that was the aim of their framework..if that;s what they maintained morality was about, then nothing stops them from making rational inferences from that.

Good luck, btw, establishing that the particulars of any empathetic feeling are irrational n the first place.  I find that part highly amusing, in that empathy explicitly denotes an ability to put ones self in some others place and posit how they might feel by reference to how you would.........there's simply nothing preventing it from being a cold, hard calculation of rational inference...though, granted, it may not always be..it may not always work......

Don't take this, btw, as some notion that there are no problems or weaknesses or flaws in such a system. All moral systems have problems, weaknesses, flaws. I'm just pointing out your failure to accurately describe such a flaw specific to this given system in your own comments. If the best objection to a moral system you can muster, amounts to comments as to whether or not it always works..or. worse; "That's just, like..your opinion...man" then you should probably give it up.

[mordant]

I think most rational, self-aware, contemplative, thinking, empathetic persons would arrive at the same conclusion that humans are existentially equal. All it requires is the aformentioned empathy and a modest amount of epistemological humility.

It’s incomplete and reveals nothing. The basic structure of the argument is as follows:

P1 is a type of U.
P2 is also a type of U.
Every U has value X.
Therefore, both P1 and P2 have equal value, i.e. X.

This leaves unanswered so very many questions it’s hard to know where even to begin. What is it about U that gives it absolute value?

You can stop right there because I, and in so far as I can tell, others discussing this with you aren't giving it absolute value. That's your hangup, not ours. We're telling you how WE value it and how we think MOST people will value it, all things being equal, out of logic, rational self interest, empathy, and a normal sense of community.

We aren't saying it's absolute, guaranteed, or that one can appeal to something "out there" to validate or authorize or impose it. As I said in the rest of my post, you seem to want a guarantee that all comers will arrive at the same conclusion. That's not realistic, and it's not what's being suggested. That's a requirement YOU concoct and impose on things.

Is value something real or only apparent? Why is U the common type and not U’? Is U even a type? Are types something real or only apparent? Why must every U have the same value? What if X=0?

Let’s start with some basic illustrative examples:

A Chevy Nova is a car.
A Corvette is a car.
Every car is worth $20,000.
Therefore, a Chevy Nova and a Corvette are worth $20,000.

If you're attempting to suggest here that you're NOT one of the folks that considers humans of equal dignity and worth at least in terms of potential, then maybe these examples would obtain -- if they made the slightest bit of sense, that is. "Every car is worth $20,000" is manifestly and objectively not true, as a perusal of Kelly Blue Book will reveal. Therefore it's not the same thing as saying that all humans have the same rights. Nor would I suggest that all humans contribute as much positive to the human enterprise, or are even able to, which is (imperfectly) why they don't all get paid the same wages for example, or manage their income equally well. We are talking about human rights -- the right to freedom of thought and to hold one's own opinions, freedom of association, freedom of conscience, the right to pursue happiness, things of that nature. Also the right not to be sold and priced like chattel -- or like cars.

Hmmm…let’s also take another quick look at empathy towards other human beings. Are we talking about empathy only for the immediate pain and suffering of others or must we also consider their long term good? A child may feel very hurt and humiliated by being disciplined but his future self would be thankful for appropriate correction. Similarly, do we have moral obligations to human beings who do not even exist yet? Are we obligated to protect the environment and preserving culture for future generations?

We have something called mirror neurons that allow us to relate our feelings to the feelings of others, and what's sometimes less understood, we have the ability to relate to FUTURE others. For example, I might really want to eat a half gallon of ice cream but, empathizing with my future self, I might deny myself that short term gratification (particularly on a recurrent basis) in the interest of better health. That, too, is empathy, as is empathy for your future child in your example. All of that is provided for by our evolved biology.

All you guys are doing is expressing a personal and cultural preference. There is nothing particularly rational about the claims as currently being presented.

What is there BESIDES personal and cultural preferences? That is what morality arises from. And it is sufficient. It doesn't have to come from the Beyond to be useful and sufficient to its purpose.

How about YOUR personal and cultural preferences? Can you even begin to demonstrate that your alleged externally bestowed morality is anything but what YOU prefer or your theistic subculture asserts?

One of the big problems with theistic morality is that it is obsessed with the notion that morality is null and void without a backing authority. Yet ... despite that I deny your CHOSEN and PREFERRED and ASSERTED backing authority, you would find me entirely ethical as a friend, contractor, employee or any other sort of interaction we might have, and would in fact find my integrity to be toward the high end of what you've experienced throughout your existence. I wonder how that could be. Or are you going to be one of those who claims it's all an act and doesn't "count" because it isn't correctly sourced??

[Astonished]

It's literally impossible for any human morality to come from an absolute authority because ultimately all humans have to choose which one they're in agreement with, so even if an edict by an existent absolute authority was out there, it's still got to be chosen by a person, which means a person has to make that one non-absolute judgment and choice to follow that or not. But because no one would be able to know exactly what said hypothetical absolute authority-derived morality, it's a moot point anyway.

[The Grand Nudger]

Even the authority of the objective and demonstrable cannot be and has never been absolute.  No matter how assiduously I establish that some thing x harms some person in a way not even remotely limited to or based on my or anyone else's opinion.... there will be someone, somewhere, who maintains that it either doesn't harm them, or that such harm is not meaningfully relevant.  

After all, do savages truly feel pain as the white man feels it?