My Atheist Friends, Help Me Understand
I read posts here that call different things, "harmful to humanity." Others call something, "good" or "bad" or "evil."
A very simple question, who gets to decide the definition of "harmful to humanity" and what is there critieria? The same for "good," "bad," and "evil?" These are not material terms. If everything is material isn't there just "is" and not these moral declarations if one is being thoroughly atheist?
Help me understand your position so I am fair and honest about the views. Thanks.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by thelonely on -
yes i know you well,so this morality if it is a concept inside us we easily relate to it in our judgement or our deeds,and as human we are defining our selves moral being how in the same time we did the wrong and we know that is wrong that's why ppl blame and feel regret if so this moral is in human built system and human is moral by nature.if not and this morality is from out side we learned it before or family obligation or social obligation so how could this morality easyly communicate with our conscience as if in side or inner and deep? can any person make a status for him self different to the what we called ethic or moral and he or she lives in peace with him or herself without what we called conscience blame him or feel regret or even sorry??i am asking to start the discussion not to make fan and you know me.
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on -
@thelonely
You are avoiding the difficult question, Lonely; what makes ethics/morality different than economics? How is what you just said any different than how a person feels about paying too high of a price for something? I mean they wanted it, so they bought it, but then later regretted what they paid because they know they paid too much. Did a god instill this sense of value in us?
Why do you have such difficulty seeing ethics/morality as a social construct?
-
Permalink Reply by Unseen on -
One of the hardest things for a convert to atheism to give up is the notion that ethics, morality, right and wrong, are writ in the sky by God. Of course, they can't say they come from God but they cling to the notion that there is something objective and necessary about ethics and ethical judgments.
-
Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on -
Actually, I heard he hired a skywriter in a bi-plane, but that's just an unconfirmed rumor --
-
Permalink Reply by John Major on -
@Unseen. Some things, like dominion over animals, are quite nice to hang on to as we convert to atheism?
-
Permalink Reply by thelonely on
-
I am not avoiding the"difficult" question,what makes ethics/morality different than economics?indeed morality governs economic policy,the same when we declare that morality governs our personnel life or our social life,so moral and ethics wherever they came from,are shaping in a way our judgement for the good or the bad, while we are buying or marring or playing or treating animals or.......moral and ethics give us the idea to judge our behavior,and a self satisfaction increases when self/ones moral are respected and followed.
"but then later regretted what they paid because they know they paid too much." in this case regret is because of choice failure,i mean he did the wrong choice but in moral we don't have choice either we are truthful or not.
are you sure that ethics and morality are social construct?i think in any community,modern or primitive,poor or rich,educated or ignorant....killing ppl or stealing or telling lies are unethical and immoral.
to say that moral pure non social i think is not pure right,we are living in a society with others we like it or not this can affect personnel and way of judgement,it can enforce what is good and bad but the concept itself is not social. (good and bad) is human more than social or evolution result.
-
Permalink Reply by Unseen on
-
i think in any community,modern or primitive,poor or rich,educated or ignorant....killing ppl or stealing or telling lies are unethical and immoral.
You're falling into a common trap, which is that of assuming because there are social rules that apply to treating some people that anyone who doesn't follow those rules are aberrant, deviant, or "bad" people. By doing so, you basically don't count them into your generalization.
What do you have to say about the people who, despite the generally prevailing ethical standards presume to do the opposite? The crooks, the gangsters, the abusers, the terrorists.
By not counting them or by ignoring them or by discounting them you rig the game on behalf of your thesis.
-
Permalink Reply by thelonely on
-
@Unseen,moral and ethics are pure self obligation not social,yes society give such judgement concerning ppl or what they do,but this social impact can be neglected but what is important is what is going on inside and deep down for those "crooks,gangsters........."we don't talk about laws we talk about ethics and morality,so if they can live in peace with this immorality when they face themselves,so maybe they are abnormal or victims of unjust if they are not aware of it.but there are others can not live with it,so if they steal something they stole part of themselves first or if they kill someone they killed part of them before and they can not live with it.
there is another group like robin hood,for example this is Controversial.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on
-
@thelonely
Morality/ethics do not govern supply/demand, and are completely absent in a truly free market. We impose moral/ethical guidelines into economic policy, just as we impose economic/financial limits into moral/ethical polics(law). The two, however, are distinctly different social constructs.
If killing people is universally immoral - then why did Mohammed order so many people killed? Why do most countries have legal position on 'justified homicide', and why do they train soldiers to kill? We get just as grey when it comes to matters of property and lying.
We can observe the ethics of a social group just as we can observe their economics. There are simply two of many categories of phenomenon that we find in all sorts of social structures. So again I ask - what makes ethics/morality so distinct from economics that theists do not propose objective economics as they seem to keep pushing this (wrong) idea of objective morality?
-
Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on
-
Heather, with all due respect - I understand everything you're saying, but for "the lonely," English, at best, is a second language - do you really believe he can understand your post?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on
-
@archeopteryx
Actually I'm not entirely concerned with whether or not he can understand it - even if he could it wouldn't change his mind anyway. I'm really only leaving my comment for posterity, :D
Hopefully someone else will pick up on the economics/ethics social construct counter-apologetic.
-
-
Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on
-
@Heather - in that vein, allow me to extend the gratitude of my yet-unborn great grandchildren - there has been some talk of stone carving, but I can't promise anything --
PS - Suzanne Olsen-Hyde speaks very highly of you.
-
What's new today
Forum
Soldier killed in Woolwich, London, UK
Started by TheyCallMeDave in Ethics & Morals. Last reply by TheyCallMeDave 11 minutes ago. 27 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
...and now I wait to die.
Posted by Misty: Baytheist Living! on May 23, 2013 at 4:03pm 3 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
