Atheism, and how it relates to amorality.

Post Reply New Topic

People who haven't heard of the ten commandments are not always breaking the commandments, true. Most people follow the ten commandments without knowing what it is becuase it influenced society, law, and the evolution process of civlization. At the time of the Commandments, all those things were normal and the concept of it being wrong was never introduced until the Ten Commandments. But the question is, would people have decided on their own through time that things like killing is bad? The ten commandments goes against natural law and human nature. I seriously doubt any man would come up with those things on his own...although the invention of the cell phone and internet has got me seriously impressed.

But at the same time, Eastern Philosophy seems pretty untouched by Christianity for ages, but I don't know enough about their history to know when morality would have been introduced over there. But I could almost believe that there was a strong western influence at some point.

This is more to everyone, but

I think the "you" versus the "they" is an English thing, and the real meaning behind the concept is getting lost in syntax. If I wrote the golden rule, I would have said, "Don't F--- people over" In other words, if they don't like butt sex, then don't surprise them with butt sex, irregardless of how you feel on it.

For guidance in living an ethical life I like the Categorical Imperative by Immanuel Kant. It is to the effect that one should behave in such a way that one could make universal law from that behavior. This maxim does not require a religion, by the way.

There is no logical system that can be used to determine the moral choice for every situation. We only have intuition and innate compassion. Mistakes are inevitable.

I question Kant, because the categorical imperative seems to strict, and the notion of moral rationalism doesn't seem correct. For the first part, there is the issue of not lying to a person trying to do harm. As for the second part, well... the part of the brain in control of moral action and the part of the brain that is in charge of rationality are not the same part, as can be seen with people who have antisocial personality disorder. So, it would really seem that Kant's morality seems to be questionable, and then to have problems meshing in with psychology involving morality. I mean, I suppose it is plausible to take a Kantian moral idea as valid, but personally, I would doubt the validity of it.

I figure if Hume and Kant can't agree who is right, we won't be able to either. I plan to read what Hume has to say on the subject. I guess that he would say that Kant would not be able to judge what should be a universal law without a "conscience." As I see it we run into a chicken and egg problem. I see a conscience as being the feeling of guilt that results from not behaving the way everyone should in that situation.

Actually, I like Hume's ideas a lot. I think his claim isn't that so much as a reference to the fact that psychologically we sense that our moral claims have a lot tied to our emotions. Basically, Hume differs from Kant, in that Hume generally distrusts reason for finding truths, and many of his major contributions are derived from his skepticism. In any case, I find Hume's "Is-Ought" problem to be one of his best contributions to ethics, more so than his arguments that ethics are derived from emotions(actually, I find his statement "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." to be more interesting).

In any case, I think JL Mackie is better than both of them.

Actually, I find Stirner's outright rejection even more compelling than Mackie, if I had to be honest.

Cookie-cutter apologetics aren't needed as you simply have your facts wrong.

Slavery, as it's known today, wasn't commanded or supported by the OT God. In fact, we do find that such a thing--slavery as we know it--was punishable by death (Exodus 21:16). In fact, if people did their research instead of quote mining from text, they would find out that the common understanding of slavery then as opposed to now can be summed up in a single sentence:

Slavery in modern time exploits one's fellow man, whereas slavery's--as dictated in the OT--purpose was to benefit one's fellow man.

A good article on the subject may be found here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html


Considering your accuracy regarding slavery, it's pointless for me to continue on with the rest of your charges.