-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The supremacy of the ethical
- Thread starter Alaric
- Start date
You're quite the paradox... a subjective objectivity within a relative absolute? Somebody's missing something, if I have a clue what you're saying it makes no sense, and if you have a clue what I'm saying then it seems everybody's confused.
As far as I can tell we're arguing past each other, and you're just trying to say that atheists are more rational because theists are usually hypocrites- and with that I agree.
"Sure they are!! Well, you might be too old for that of course... me, I'm in my fist-waving prodding-finger-in-the-chest arm-flapping prime!"
Haha, I'm much younger than you are kid.
As far as I can tell we're arguing past each other, and you're just trying to say that atheists are more rational because theists are usually hypocrites- and with that I agree.
"Sure they are!! Well, you might be too old for that of course... me, I'm in my fist-waving prodding-finger-in-the-chest arm-flapping prime!"
Haha, I'm much younger than you are kid.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Alaric-- I would submit that you already HAVE written a book about this (volumes, in fact) :lol:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I agree with BioMors that all morality is ultimately based on emotional axioms, none of which can be proved or disproved logically.
However, I would also agree with Alaric that once a person figures out what his/her axioms are, he/she CAN use logic to effectively discover how best to acheive as many of those axioms as possible.
So for example, a vegetarian does not feel eating meat is murder simply because it is "logical" to feel it is murder. However, the vegetarian can use logic to create a moral code that will enable the person to stop eating meat and encourage others to do so without compromising other axioms (like getting enough protein).
You both have good points--can't you both be right (BioMors and Alaric)?
However, I would also agree with Alaric that once a person figures out what his/her axioms are, he/she CAN use logic to effectively discover how best to acheive as many of those axioms as possible.
So for example, a vegetarian does not feel eating meat is murder simply because it is "logical" to feel it is murder. However, the vegetarian can use logic to create a moral code that will enable the person to stop eating meat and encourage others to do so without compromising other axioms (like getting enough protein).
You both have good points--can't you both be right (BioMors and Alaric)?
Indeed, logic can be very important, but isn't necessarily more right, just more 'accurate' relative to its respective premise.
I am a vegetarian myself (getting enough protein is far from hard- in fact I eat too much of it) and my logic for this can come from one of many premises. i.e.
(subjective premise that is neither right nor wrong) - it is good to preserve the environment
(fact) - a diet based on commercial meat does approximately ten times the harm on the environment than one based on plants
(conclusion) - not eating meat is one of many ways to reduce the harm on the environment.
The argument for morality can only be made if the person being argued agrees with the premise- then the facts fall into place.
Religions assume premises in the same way that secular beliefs do, only their premises involve "god is always right" and because they often don't realize that premises are subjective, they will argue the premise using any means they can.
Arguing for somebody to accept a premise relies on convincing them that that premise is accurate- and because one cannot argue logically that "god is always right" is accurate, it is rather pointless.
On the other hand- what Alaric may have been getting to- the argument that "it is good to preserve the environment" can be argued using many other premises people almost inherently agree with. I.e. It is good to extend the life of the human race and preserving the environment will ultimately extend the life of the human race, etc. etc. And these can be argued logically.
Still, they rely on premises that are not universally accepted and essentially subjective, so if somebody doesn't care about the human race they can't be argued with effectively.
It's all subjective; any value statement about ethical supremacy held by one group is ultimately just an opinion.
Thus Alaric cannot be right because an opinion is neither right nor wrong
I am a vegetarian myself (getting enough protein is far from hard- in fact I eat too much of it) and my logic for this can come from one of many premises. i.e.
(subjective premise that is neither right nor wrong) - it is good to preserve the environment
(fact) - a diet based on commercial meat does approximately ten times the harm on the environment than one based on plants
(conclusion) - not eating meat is one of many ways to reduce the harm on the environment.
The argument for morality can only be made if the person being argued agrees with the premise- then the facts fall into place.
Religions assume premises in the same way that secular beliefs do, only their premises involve "god is always right" and because they often don't realize that premises are subjective, they will argue the premise using any means they can.
Arguing for somebody to accept a premise relies on convincing them that that premise is accurate- and because one cannot argue logically that "god is always right" is accurate, it is rather pointless.
On the other hand- what Alaric may have been getting to- the argument that "it is good to preserve the environment" can be argued using many other premises people almost inherently agree with. I.e. It is good to extend the life of the human race and preserving the environment will ultimately extend the life of the human race, etc. etc. And these can be argued logically.
Still, they rely on premises that are not universally accepted and essentially subjective, so if somebody doesn't care about the human race they can't be argued with effectively.
It's all subjective; any value statement about ethical supremacy held by one group is ultimately just an opinion.
Thus Alaric cannot be right because an opinion is neither right nor wrong
Thank you, Mr Spinkles! BioMors, for the umpteenth time, I am not arguing for an opinion! Do you, or do you not, agree that if you hold certain beliefs and values, that actions you take can be objectively classified as right or wrong, based on those beliefs? The C.I. simply tells you the consequences of your particular beliefs, not the beliefs themselves.
The trick is that this is not obvious, and I would guess that after much debating most people would have to agree on pretty much the same things, conveniently harmonising morality. But that's beside the point. The important thing is that if you follow doctrines to establish your morality, you are not behaving rationally.
The trick is that this is not obvious, and I would guess that after much debating most people would have to agree on pretty much the same things, conveniently harmonising morality. But that's beside the point. The important thing is that if you follow doctrines to establish your morality, you are not behaving rationally.
OctoberTheHottie
Member
Sorry if this is a little obvious, but you are saying you aren't looking for the answer of what one *thinks* they would do or has time to think about what they are doing, but what exactly you would do at that very second when it is happening and you're heart is racing and every thought is going through your mind a million miles a second and you have to decide RIGHT NOW!!!!! When you don't have time to think, when you don't know what Jesus would do, and you know you have morals, they are there somewhere, but all of a sudden your mind goes blank and you just do..... ?? Am I close?? Did I get it??
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I don't understand your question
Well not really - though I don't think I explained it very well. It's a work in progress! But the basic point is that given your own beliefs and desires, your own ignorance, and the acknowledgement that your actions (that you don't end up regretting) are a representation of how you expect anyone else to act in the same situation, some actions are objectively right and some are objectively wrong.OctoberTheHottie said:
So for example, behaving in a certain way just because you think Jesus would act that way sends a message to others that you expect, or at least accept, that others only act according to how they think their own personal idol would act - and if you reflect on the consequences of that, you would probably realise that this does not agree with your beliefs and values. Meaning that it isn't Jesus that is worth following, but rather his values and ideals, which can be derived independently of him, and therefore do not require belief in Jesus, God, or anything else.
The moral of the story is, never rely on religion, tradition or authority to derive your morality.
The supremacy of the ethical
or: Why only atheists can be truly moral.
You seem to be arguing that
1. The C.I. is the epitome of morality
- This is an Opinion. Not a fact by any means. Morality deals with the issues of right and wrong which are inherently subjective. Whether or not something works in society has nothing to do with it. The class system works, but is it right?
- Even if you could prove something is inherently right, which you cannot because it is an opinion, the very definition of the C.I. revolves around further subjectivity that makes it essentially obsolete
- If you remove that subjectivity from the C.I. it then becomes yet another doctrine, no different than those of many religions.
2. That non-Atheists cannot use the C.I.
This I disagree with on the basis of your definition.
-if it is a subjective process its inherent subjectivity makes it all encompassing (and thus essentially useless)
- if you remove the subjectivity the C.I. becomes a religion itself.
When you argue these points as you have been doing, you are merely arguing that your religion (this objective C.I. youve devised) is superior to others religions- I fail to see how this is not an opinion.
If youre only trying to argue the rationality or irrationality of certain beliefs then this discussion has become something entirely different than what it started as.
Do you, or do you not, agree that if you hold certain beliefs and values, that actions you take can be objectively classified as right or wrong, based on those beliefs?
The values and beliefs people hold have various levels of importance to the individual, some superceding the others. Relative to the premises of somebodys beliefs, their actions can be classified as congruent or incongruent with their opinion of right and wrong. Just because one of those beliefs is god exists and it always right doesnt change anything. Using the C.I. these people do what is right for them- god just happens to be a big factor in what is right.
You seem to not understand my arguments because Ive answered these questions several times. Please try to focus on questions about my answers so that we may make progress in this debate- otherwise its an unending loop.
And chill out a bit, exclamation points and make believe numbers arent healthy
You seem to be arguing that
1. The C.I. is the epitome of morality
- This is an Opinion. Not a fact by any means. Morality deals with the issues of right and wrong which are inherently subjective. Whether or not something works in society has nothing to do with it. The class system works, but is it right?
- Even if you could prove something is inherently right, which you cannot because it is an opinion, the very definition of the C.I. revolves around further subjectivity that makes it essentially obsolete
- If you remove that subjectivity from the C.I. it then becomes yet another doctrine, no different than those of many religions.
2. That non-Atheists cannot use the C.I.
This I disagree with on the basis of your definition.
-if it is a subjective process its inherent subjectivity makes it all encompassing (and thus essentially useless)
- if you remove the subjectivity the C.I. becomes a religion itself.
When you argue these points as you have been doing, you are merely arguing that your religion (this objective C.I. youve devised) is superior to others religions- I fail to see how this is not an opinion.
If youre only trying to argue the rationality or irrationality of certain beliefs then this discussion has become something entirely different than what it started as.
Do you, or do you not, agree that if you hold certain beliefs and values, that actions you take can be objectively classified as right or wrong, based on those beliefs?
The values and beliefs people hold have various levels of importance to the individual, some superceding the others. Relative to the premises of somebodys beliefs, their actions can be classified as congruent or incongruent with their opinion of right and wrong. Just because one of those beliefs is god exists and it always right doesnt change anything. Using the C.I. these people do what is right for them- god just happens to be a big factor in what is right.
You seem to not understand my arguments because Ive answered these questions several times. Please try to focus on questions about my answers so that we may make progress in this debate- otherwise its an unending loop.
And chill out a bit, exclamation points and make believe numbers arent healthy
a representation of how you expect anyone else to act in the same situation, some actions are objectively right and some are objectively wrong.
I can see where youre confused but Im really not sure how to explain it to you. The method by which you extrapolate the objective right and wrong from each persons actions must be objective, otherwise youre just extending the subjectivity of the method rather than arriving at an untainted conclusion truly based off of the persons beliefs.
When the C.I. is used objectively to do that it becomes worthless- relatively it must always boil down to it is right to do what one feels is right.
When an aspect of subjectivity is placed in the process it fails to be an objective interpretation of the individuals opinion.
So for example, behaving in a certain way just because you think Jesus would act that way sends a message to others that you expect, or at least accept, that others only act according to how they think their own personal idol would act
No that level of definition is your own opinion coming through.
The message that they are sending could range from that you accept them acting in the way that Jesus would act, to that you accept them acting in a way they feel is right.
The degree of relativity is the subjective part of the C.I. that you dont seem to see.
In that situation using the C.I. in a 100% relative manner you would be saying that its okay for people to do what they do; whereas in the same situation with 0% relativity the C.I. dictates it is okay for a person with my exact genetic makeup, wearing these clothes, in these atmospheric conditions, with this exact planetary alignment, in this precise location in space and time, to do what Im doing.
As you can see, like Ive said time and again- neither way works.
The aspects of relativity considered when using the C.I. are opinions, and if you set them as absolutes then the C.I. is not rational because it is no longer objective.
The moral of the story is, never rely on religion, tradition or authority to derive your morality.
Its a nice moral, but the story makes no sense.
I can see where youre confused but Im really not sure how to explain it to you. The method by which you extrapolate the objective right and wrong from each persons actions must be objective, otherwise youre just extending the subjectivity of the method rather than arriving at an untainted conclusion truly based off of the persons beliefs.
When the C.I. is used objectively to do that it becomes worthless- relatively it must always boil down to it is right to do what one feels is right.
When an aspect of subjectivity is placed in the process it fails to be an objective interpretation of the individuals opinion.
So for example, behaving in a certain way just because you think Jesus would act that way sends a message to others that you expect, or at least accept, that others only act according to how they think their own personal idol would act
No that level of definition is your own opinion coming through.
The message that they are sending could range from that you accept them acting in the way that Jesus would act, to that you accept them acting in a way they feel is right.
The degree of relativity is the subjective part of the C.I. that you dont seem to see.
In that situation using the C.I. in a 100% relative manner you would be saying that its okay for people to do what they do; whereas in the same situation with 0% relativity the C.I. dictates it is okay for a person with my exact genetic makeup, wearing these clothes, in these atmospheric conditions, with this exact planetary alignment, in this precise location in space and time, to do what Im doing.
As you can see, like Ive said time and again- neither way works.
The aspects of relativity considered when using the C.I. are opinions, and if you set them as absolutes then the C.I. is not rational because it is no longer objective.
The moral of the story is, never rely on religion, tradition or authority to derive your morality.
Its a nice moral, but the story makes no sense.
Ditto. See, I understand your arguments perfectly, I use them myself - just try looking beyond it for a sec. You just seem to be repeating the subjectivity of morality automatically as soon as you see the word 'objectively', like it's a closed debate that everyone with any brain agrees with. Well, it ain't! I accept that morality is inherently subjective, I admit it, I acknowlege it. No one will ever be able to demonstrate that some action is necessarily and objectively good or bad, right or wrong, without first basing it on some premise that has been given beforehand. What I am trying to show is the necessity of the C.I. in determining your morality given those basic values. It's the contradictions that I am trying to root out, like the ones that always arise when you base your morality on religion. If somehow you didn't realise this before, I'll try and make a shorter version of that long post for you. Just put aside the subjectivity of morality for a second, because it isn't important here.BioMors said:
Of course I am not saying I'm right, but your arguments don't deal with what I am saying.
Sure they are!! Well, you might be too old for that of course... me, I'm in my fist-waving prodding-finger-in-the-chest arm-flapping prime!BioMors said:And chill out a bit, exclamation points and make believe numbers arent healthy
You're quite the paradox... a subjective objectivity within a relative absolute? Somebody's missing something, if I have a clue what you're saying it makes no sense, and if you have a clue what I'm saying then it seems everybody's confused.
As far as I can tell we're arguing past each other, and you're just trying to say that atheists are more rational because theists are usually hypocrites- and with that I agree.
"Sure they are!! Well, you might be too old for that of course... me, I'm in my fist-waving prodding-finger-in-the-chest arm-flapping prime!"
Haha, I'm much younger than you are kid.
As far as I can tell we're arguing past each other, and you're just trying to say that atheists are more rational because theists are usually hypocrites- and with that I agree.
"Sure they are!! Well, you might be too old for that of course... me, I'm in my fist-waving prodding-finger-in-the-chest arm-flapping prime!"
Haha, I'm much younger than you are kid.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Alaric-- I would submit that you already HAVE written a book about this (volumes, in fact) :lol: