Atheism and Ethics

[Angrboda]

That's a semantic question.  From a practical standpoint, an anti-realist makes choices which have a moral dimension situationally.  I don't think it matters whether that dimension is real or not.

Out of interest, is the question of why an anti-realist would act morally just one of curiosity, or does it lean towards evidence against anti-realism for you?

Mere curiosity. I'm wondering how you answer the objection. Given the average person seems, in practice, to be constrained by a conscience, I think that's a significant difference.

[Lucian]

Out of interest, is the question of why an anti-realist would act morally just one of curiosity, or does it lean towards evidence against anti-realism for you?

Mere curiosity.  I'm wondering how you answer the objection.  Given the average person seems, in practice, to be constrained by a conscience, I think that's a significant difference.

Understood. My Christian friend sees possible bad outcomes of a belief as evidence that the belief itself must be wrong. Completely bonkers approach to my mind and ignores the bad consequences of Christian belief also

I am not a moral abolitionist, believing we should do away with moral talk and thought. I am a very confused moral conservationist and possibly fictionalist but as I said - confused!
The reason I don’t want to do away with moral talk and thought is that I think it can do some good, and a development of the conscience is one such good. That said, I don’t think a conscience needs an objective standard to develop, empathy is one such mechanism that could guide a conscience without.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think it's very rarely as advantageous as we imagine to act poorly. I want to point out it doesn't matter whether there's an objecting standard to act on for any of this. We say, for example, that outside of moral concerns why not steal - wouldn't that be more advantageous than being moral? We're forgetting the possibility of getting shot, the hand choppers, the lengthy prison sentences, and the social shunning

"But what if I could get away with it? -You wont. At least not as a lifestyle decision, lol.

At the bottom of the barrel, though, I personally think that realists and antirealists have all the same reasons to accept utilitarian ethics - in the realists case, even if those utilitarian ethics rub against their moral sense.

[Lucian]

"But what if I could get away with it? -You wont.  At least not as a lifestyle decision, lol.

I thibk you overestimate my ambitions. One blade of grass at a time and I will steal my neighbours lawn, just give me the time

[Angrboda]

I think it's very rarely as advantageous as we imagine to act poorly.  I want to point out it doesn't matter whether there's an objecting standard to act on for any of this.  We say, for example, that outside of moral concerns why not steal - wouldn't that be more advantageous than being moral?  We're forgetting the possibility of getting shot, the hand choppers, the lengthy prison sentences, and the social shunning

"But what if I could get away with it? -You wont.  At least not as a lifestyle decision, lol.

At the bottom of the barrel, though, I personally think that realists and antirealists have all the same reasons to accept utilitarian ethics - in the realists case, even if those utilitarian ethics rub against their moral sense.

Really? Morals provide the justification for law. Without morals, there is no law besides might makes right.

Blacks, Native Americans, and unwed mothers all make arguments to their benefit on principles of fairness. But fairness is a moral concern. Without it, the arguments vanish.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that's a common perception of law, but we might find that it's not the case if we refer to the vast amount of things that we believe are immoral..but are not illegal. Moral fairness is also out the window when we compare white collar sentences with massive consequences and thefts that carry longer sentences with lesser consequence.

I suppose there are people who think that the law should be more closely aligned with our moral intuitions - but I don't think so. I tend to see law as relative ethics and morality as it's own thing. Relative ethics don't need morality any more than relative morality needs realism. We could be a legalistic rather than moral society - this is a simplification, ofc, as we're a combination of both.

[Angrboda]

I think that's a common perception of law, but we might find that it's not the case if we refer to the vast amount of things that we believe are immoral..but are not illegal.  Moral fairness is also out the window when we compare white collar sentences with massive consequences and thefts that carry longer sentences with lesser consequence.  

I suppose there are people who think that the law should be more closely aligned with our moral intuitions - but I don't think so.  I tend to see law as relative ethics and morality as it's own thing.  Relative ethics don't need morality any more than relative morality needs realism.  We could be a legalistic rather than moral society - this is a simplification, ofc, as we're a combination of both.

The fact that not all things that are immoral are illegal isn't a defeater, as the justification flows the other direction. It's not necessary that all morals be reflected in law, only that all law has a moral justification. Ultimately law derives its justification from morals. Your theories about laws and proportionately don't refute that.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't mean to offer a defeater.

I'm pointing out that even if we do premise some law on a moral justification it isn't clear why we have to, and we can find plenty of examples where we don't or where our laws stand in direct contradiction to our moral sense..if..for no other reason..than the price of representative government. Laws could, and some certainly do, come from moral claims..but not all do, and not all must. That's probably a good thing, particularly if there are no true moral statements.

If you ask me why murder is illegal I'll tell you that's because a society like ours can't function well otherwise. It's also wrong, too...sure? Meanwhile we have a ton of other laws that also help our society function which I think are questionable or outright morally wrong.

[Angrboda]

The exception proves the rule.

[Ahriman]

I think it's very rarely as advantageous as we imagine to act poorly.  I want to point out it doesn't matter whether there's an objecting standard to act on for any of this.  We say, for example, that outside of moral concerns why not steal - wouldn't that be more advantageous than being moral?  We're forgetting the possibility of getting shot, the hand choppers, the lengthy prison sentences, and the social shunning

"But what if I could get away with it? -You wont.  At least not as a lifestyle decision, lol.

At the bottom of the barrel, though, I personally think that realists and antirealists have all the same reasons to accept utilitarian ethics - in the realists case, even if those utilitarian ethics rub against their moral sense.

Really?  Morals provide the justification for law.  Without morals, there is no law besides might makes right.

Blacks, Native Americans, and unwed mothers all make arguments to their benefit on principles of fairness.  But fairness is a moral concern.  Without it, the arguments vanish.

Fair to whom? Someone, somewhere, is definitely going to be treated poorly as a result of some group or another getting what they want. Doesn't seem fair to me.