You are playing silly semantic games now
There is No Morality Without God
by whereami 161 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Mad Sweeney
So because people are able to twist the meaning of "well-being" that makes it an inadequate yardstick by which to measure the morality of an act?
Newsflash: people can twist the meaning of ANY word, even MORALITY itself. Lets try to avoid semantic arguments and stick to the tangible issues here, ok?
-
PSacramento
indeed:
"Although the study does not resolve the ethical debate, it points to a flaw in the widely-adopted use of sacrificial dilemmas to identify optimal moral judgment. These methods fail to distinguish between people who endorse utilitarian moral choices because of underlying emotional deficits (like those captured by our measures of psychopathy and Machiavellianism) and those who endorse them out of genuine concern for the welfare of others." In short, if scientists' methods cannot identify a difference between the morality of a utilitarian philosopher who sacrifices her own interest for the sake of others, and a manipulative con artist who cares little about the feelings and welfare of anyone but himself, then perhaps better methods are needed.
-
cofty
Consider why we even speak about morality in a human context. We live in society, in relationship to each other. There are many ways to behave that would result in the maximum suffering for the maximum number of people.
By structuring society in certain ways, by living by certain agreed rules we can maximise the well being of as many as possible. There are certain facts we can state about these rules. There are moral truths that go beyond opinions or cultural norms. Morality is just our deliberate thinking about how we behave in relationship to each other.
Societies that practice genital mutilation or who force their women to live in a black bag do not maximise the well being of 50% of their population. The males may think these rules add to their own happiness but that is only becasue they have not explored the alternative of giving their women equal rights. Its possible, and all too common, for society to be just plain wrong about morality just as it is possible for societies to be wrong about what promotes good health.
-
cofty
perhaps better methods are needed.
Perhaps, just as better methods to detect and treat cancer are needed. Thats no reason to resort to magic spells.
-
PSacramento
I agree Cofty.
And yes, there can be morality without god, simply because the core morality, wherever it came from, already exists for us to use.
But where did THAT morality core come from?
Morality is just our deliberate thinking about how we behave in relationship to each other.
Based on what though? what drives us t believe that there is an "ought to" as opposed to "that's how it is".
Why does might NOT make right? Why do we find certain acts, even if held by the vast majority to be good, to be wrong?
It is a philospohical question and not a scientific one because science CAN'T answer it.
Everything we do has a "ripple effect" on everything else and how does one account for every sinle ripple effect to decide what is best for our "well being" in a moral sense?
-
Vanderhoven7
What is the most immoral thing you can do to a person; the thing that hinders man's "well being" the most.
Answer: To kill him.
OK
Was it moral to assassinate Osama?
Was it moral to drop the bomb on Hiroshima?
Was it moral to kill millions of unborn children decade after decade? How about all those "girl" babies in China? What about that second child that the saline solution missed and the doctor smothered with the placenta. Was killing one moral, but the other 5 minutes later, immoral?
Atheism can not produce an objective basis for human valuation so it cannot produce a valid mora system.
-
cofty
I could not disagree more. Of course you can get an "ought" for an "is" David Hume was wrong.
There is no objective morality "out there somewhere" like the Platonic Form of the Good. All morality worthy of the name is directly connected to human well being. Tell me a moral statement that isn't.
Science is the best possible tool to discover moral truths.
-
cofty
Vanderhoven you are debating a straw man.
Was it moral to kill Bin Laden? Did his death promote the well being of the maximum number of human beings?
The point is not whether or not we can answer such a question in practice but whether it could be answered in theory if we had all the relevant facts.
-
Mad Sweeney
What is the most immoral thing you can do to a person; the thing that hinders man's "well being" the most.
Answer: To kill him.
That is not necessarily true. Sometimes euthanasia is a mercy.
OK
Was it moral to assassinate Osama?
Not without a trial, no.
Was it moral to drop the bomb on Hiroshima?
Yes, because it saved more lives than it ended. Net win is moral.
Was it moral to kill millions of unborn children decade after decade? How about all those "girl" babies in China? What about that second child that the saline solution missed and the doctor smothered with the placenta. Was killing one moral, but the other 5 minutes later, immoral?
Um, no, those acts are not moral.
Atheism can not produce an objective basis for human valuation.
This statement does not follow from any of the preceeding. There is no evidence for it at all.