Atheists lack ethics according to this guy.
Offline Ethics and the Atheist
Any time an Atheist discusses ethics, you may be sure that what is being proposed is opinion, pure and simple. It has to be opinion, because it can’t be claimed as a fact, since that would make it an absolute. Atheists by definition reject all absolutes, especially those that would be revealed by any divine source. So the Judeo-Christian ethic is also rejected. Ethics have been devised by almost every Atheist philosopher since the first split of the Enlightenment thinkers away from ecclesiasticism. And every Atheist has the right to define his own code of behavior. Thus Atheist ethics is anything but settled doctrine.
However, the advent of humanism has put some organization to the chaos of Atheist ethics.
Humanist Ethics
The most glaring paradox of Atheism can be found in humanism. Humanism first was defined by Auguste Comte, and later redefined in more palatable terms. The following two points embrace the essence of the ethics of humanism, then and now:
Humanism:
a) Human happiness is the paramount good.
b) Individual humans must make their own happiness subservient to the happiness of the entirety of mankind.
Now if my job is to make all mankind happy, how shall I go about it? First I need to know what it is that makes all mankind happy, and for that there fortunately exists the elite class that exists to guide me. And doing just as the elites tell me to do will, in turn make me happy, right? So everyone will be happy; the entirety of mankind, the elites, and me. What could be simpler than that? Or at least more simplistic.
Humanist Experiments
For one thing, the 20th century has proved that the proletariat did not wish to do what the elites of the “Proletariat Revolution” told them to do. They had to be persuaded by death: millions starved, shot, or thrown into rivers with stones around their necks. The proletariat was not happy. Entire cultures, such as the Kulaks, were erased. The proletariat still was not happy. Massacres continued for decades, until the proletariat was happy…happy to remain silent, obedient, and thoroughly subjugated.
Scientific Ethics
It can be justifiably said that Atheist ethics are those types of conduct that are convenient, at the moment. This is Darwinian “fittest” at its scientific best. The fittest are ethically bound to the Darwinian goal of developing a race more fit for the world than any other race. And as Darwin observed, there would be races disappearing along the way, as the fittest took its place of supremacy.
Nietzschean Anti-Rationalism
There would be one person who would take Darwinism and humanism to the very outer limits, the maximum beyond which there could be nothing else. Friedrich Nietzsche was up to that task. He proposed first that the God idea was dead. Second, that no first principles could be proven, so that rational thought could not exist. Third, that mankind exists only as a link between the animals and the “ubermench” (over-man). So the elite class had an obligation to breed the best to the best, and to control and manage the “herd”. Then Nietzsche prophesied, that because of himself, Friedrich Nietzsche, the 20th century would see cataclysmic wars unlike any ever seen before. Nietzsche was the official philosopher for the Nazi party. Lenin had a bust of Nietzsche on his desk, and his books in his drawer. Nietzsche had formed the ethic that plagued the twentieth century.
Personal Atheist Ethics
Now, the atheist will no doubt protest that his own personal ethics are robustly thought through and are logical to a fault. There are two possibilities here. First, if the Atheist has created an all new, spectacular plan for his own behavior, what if it doesn’t jibe exactly with the ethics of other Atheists? Which then is right when a dispute arises between them? Second, what if the Atheist has merely cherry picked suitable behaviors from the Judeo-Christian divinely revealed ethic?
The Ethical Atheist Test
Most (if not all) atheists will claim not to be amoral, much less immoral. How does that work? Let’s test the premises. They cascade from Premise (a) to Premise (d), as follows:
Premise (a): Atheists believe “there is no supreme being, beyond observable nature. There is no extra-natural, transcendent, necessary cause or necessary being.”
Premise (b): So “there is no absolute truth outside or beyond the determinations of the mind of man” (Secular Humanism, Paul Kurtz).
Premise (c): Thus “there is no absolute moral or ethical code” (the Dahmer Principle).
Premise (d): However, the Atheist also claims to be moral and ethical.
Fortunately, there are the First Principles and the principles of logic that can be claimed for benchmarks of intellectual honesty.
Let’s apply these principles to the premises above.
Analysis
Premise (a): There is empirical and forensic silence on the subject of a deity, so declaring the absolute absence of a deity is a leap of faith. Expressing faith based on “no evidence” is a rejection of logical, rational processes. In fact it’s full name is “Fallacy: Ad Ignorantium”.
Premise (b): Since the Atheist has already accepted materialism, and thereby accepted as true the paradox of rejecting his own mind, the determinations of the mind are of no consequence, since they do not exist. So Premise (b) has no meaning, and is trivial.
Premise (c): For the materialist / Atheist, moral codes are determined by himself, so the possibility of an absolute code of any type is nullified by the triviality of Premise (b). So for the Atheist, there is no detectable, measurable, empirical external or absolute moral code. Premise (c) is true for the Atheist.
Premise (d): This is the one that we are really after. Can an Atheist logically claim to be moral and ethical ? There are some logical disparities, which I call Catch #1, #2, #3 and #4.
Catch #1: Moral Honesty Benchmark:
An Atheist who claims to be morally honest is making that claim in a personal environment where there are no absolute morals (premise (c)), and thus no reliable benchmark. So without a moral benchmark to measure honesty, he is not honest in his claim to be so. Such a benchmark would have to be determined at higher Godel level to be valid; a higher level would be outside the environment of the Atheist’s supreme mind, and thus not recognized by the Atheist. However if he admits dishonesty, he is still without a benchmark to measure it, and the admission of dishonesty is dishonest. So he is caught in a paradox of perpetual dishonesty, Type 2 (b).
Catch #2: Intellectual Honesty:
If an atheist is to claim intellectual honesty, then he must admit that he cannot be morally honest in the absence of a benchmark for measuring moral honesty. But he cannot, without being caught in the previous paradox, producing another paradox of Type 1.
Catch #3: Co-opting Benchmarks:
If, on the other hand, the atheist claims moral honesty based on cultural (external, non-Atheist) standards for honesty, then he has to admit that he is co-opting benchmarks that are outside his beliefs, such as Judeo-Christian ethics. This is, of course, dishonest. (Especially when taking some ethical precepts, while rejecting others in order to favor certain predilections such as homosexuality, sexual paganism and abortion, etc). He is co-opting another Godel level, which he has already rejected. This contradiction produces a paradox of Type 1, and Type 2 (b).
Catch #4: Creating Benchmarks:
When making up benchmarks, or claiming that they evolved, the Atheist is confirming that there are no absolute benchmarks. The created benchmarks are virtually certain to have been created around the Atheist’s personal proclivities, making is virtually certain that the Atheist’s behavior is a good fit to the created benchmarks.
In other words, if one defines his own behavior as the standard of ethical behavior, then failure to conform to the standard is impossible for that individual. So claiming ethical behavior, as measured by personal standards, is actually an exercise in triviality. Of course it is not likely that anyone else can have behavior that completely conforms to this singular personal standard, and this renders the originator of the personal standard a superior ethical specimen… inside his own world. Again, claiming any kind of honesty without a firm, universal benchmark is dishonest.
Conclusion
Thus, no matter which way it is turned, the sphere of atheism reflects an image of dishonesty, either intellectual, moral or both.
Therefore, a claim of honesty, either moral or intellectual, by an Atheist is a logical paradox, type 1 and type 2(b).
(end post)
From this link: feel free to join and rip it to shreds over there too. I've invited this guy to come here to defend this tripe.
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aa61ac900-dab6-4e8c-9f86-fcbcda72abcf...
[mod edit for formatting - Will]
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Could I get a mod to quote "Bobwilliams1" from Myrtlebeachonline.
What happend to the edit fucntion so I could fix it myself?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
This guy has me confused because I just read another post on that same forum where he calls himself a non-believer.
It is possible to have skitzos in our own ranks I guess. I'll try to clear things up with him.
In any case, it still doesn't change the text of the post as being utter crap. I am merely miffed if he is an atheist, why they would post such a steamy pile.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Ok,
He is a theist and was merely mocking atheism in claiming to be a an atheist.
For a minute there I thought I was going nuts. I even apologized for aiming my fangs at him, only to find out I was right in doing such.
Even an atheist can fall for, "Your shoe is untied".
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
What gives with all the logic gaps and definition errors?
So, here he defines humanism, and allows it to substitute for all atheism. This is a false equivalency, and a strawman.
However, as a humanist, I can say that b is only partially correct. Personal happiness is balanced against maximizing happiness among others. There are many things to take into consideration: generations to come, the population of the world as a whole, friends and family, and acquaintances. With a properly-lived life ("proper" is not universal here) you can balance your own happiness with the happiness of these other groups.
That's where morality comes in.
Ah, now this is an interesting strawman: a kind of reverse appeal-to-authority. Note humanism (which he is using as a strawman surrogate for atheism) says nothing of an "elite class." This is an invention created solely for the purpose of equating humanism with marxism, which he then uses as a surrogate for humanism. So, he's creating an artificial chain of proxies: humanism for atheism, "elite class" for humanism, marxism for an elite class.
If any one of these failed as a surrogate for the one before, the entire line of reasoning fails. Since every single link fails, his argument suffers from 360 degree failure.
It can be justifiably said? How so? "Atheists" are united by only one thing: a lack of belief in any god. That's it. Yet here he believes he is justified in claiming universals about athiests (other than the lack of belief)?
And of course he is painting all atheists with the brush of social darwinism (which has been proven to be fatally flawed, so no self-respecting free thinker would buy into social darwinism). So again, his reasoning is founded on complete ignorance of what evolution is all about, and what evolutionary ethics really means.
So again: he is constructing yet another strawman.
And again with the equating atheism with the ugly birth of the USSR and nazism! This is the real meat of his argument, the whole point. This is nothing more than a vapid repackaging of Ben Stein's rant in Expelled. As that argument has been refuted to death elsewhere, I can only say, "Think of something original, Man!"
It is scientifically proven that belief in god is not a pre-requisite for good, and a lack of belief in god is not a pre-requisite for evil. I can point to any number of evil people who believe(d) in god, including Hitler.
And again: I would submit that most atheists (and very few humanists) are Nietzchean.
Ah! So now we see exactly what he believes: that the only real ethics are Judeo-Christian divinely-revealed ethics.
First, he seems to believe that all atheists (and all people) must hold the same moral values. This is demonstrably false. There are many moral behaviors that are suitable for one person (such as vegetarianism) that do not affect others at all, and so are perfectly acceptible. Second, he seems to believe that all Judeo-Christian sects hold to the same morals. This too is demonstrably false. There are some sects that persecute homosexuals, and other sects that embrace homosexuals, for instance.
So, if ethics are divinely-revealed, why isn't there consensus among Christians about those morals?
Second, he starts to set up a false dichotomy. "There are two possibilities here." In fact, he really doesn't even present two possibilities; he implies that the atheist who believes he holds a rational set of ethics is wrong, as it won't be the same ethics held by other atheists. The other possibility is that some of those ethics might be shared with Christianity! Oh, noes! You mean that atheists might agree with Christians that murder isn't acceptible? How can that be, unless we believed that "murder is bad" is a divinely-revealed ethic? Atheists must have stolen that from Christianity!
Okay, so right here he states the one thing that all atheists have in common, only he does it incorrectly. He precludes the atheists such as Luminon who believe in things that are beyond nature. (Or, I suspect that Luminon believes they are part of nature, but beyond our current common knowledge.)
There are atheists that believe all sorts of woo. So, premise (a) should read: "Atheists believe 'there is no supreme being.'" Full stop.
This is incorrect, as well, in what looks like a quote-mine. Also, even if we accepted the quote as stated, it would necessarily apply only to secular humanists, not atheists.
As a secular humanist, I believe there is an absolute truth, and we have not yet found it. This absolute truth is the true fundamental nature of the universe. Currently, finding that nature is the quest of physicists worldwide. I hope to live to see the day when we learn that truth, though I don't know when that will be, or if we will ever achieve that goal.
So Premise (b) fails on at least two levels.
Ah, how original! He's invoking Jeffrey Dahmer in his argument! Shall I invoke BTK? Or Jeffrey Lundgren? Or Jim Jones? Or any number of psychopaths-of-faith that have twisted their belief to the point where they were immoral?
As for the quote: evolution indicates that there are certain absolutes in morality. Certainly, "Thou shalt not kill" is often held more absolute by atheists than by Christians: note the largely-Christian support of the Iraq war, which has included much killing. Meanwhile, it seems most atheists I know are completely against the Iraq war, mostly because of the killing and destruction of quality of life of the survivors.
So, near as I can tell, even Christians don't hold to an absolute moral or ethical code.
This is great! He is claiming that all atheists are strong atheists, and declare an "absolute absence" of a deity. In fact, most atheists are agnostic atheists who merely claim that god most likely does not exist, due to the lack of even the most basic of evidence.
So, anything a Christian claims on the subject is also "Fallacy: Ad Ignorantium."
In fact, since many atheists believe that morality and ethics can be derived from the application of science (the only epistemology we have that works), those atheists are the only ones who can claim a belief not based on arguments from ignorance.
Again with the universal atheist! Someone should really explain to this guy that "atheist" simply means, "doesn't believe in god." There are atheists who haven't accepted materialism. And that doesn't matter: materialism does not entail the rejection of your own mind. That is both a non sequitur and just plain wrong.
As the mind is the tool we use to observe the universe and observes empirical evidence of the objectivity of the universe, "determinations of the mind" are of consequence. It's only determinations of the mind not based on observable reality that are of no consequence.
Also, as Premise (b) was fallacious, his argument here is a non sequitur.
Incorrect. For the materialist atheist (a subset of the group "atheist" ), moral codes are determined by nature. Duh. That's the whole point of being a materialist. As "trivial" Premise (b) is fallacious, as is Premise (c), this conclusion is very fallacious.
Wow! There is enough logical contortions here to render one stupified with dizziness. There are benchmarks of honesty that are absolute, which is simply this: "Does the person making the claim believe it to be true?" If so, he is being honest. He may also be wrong, such as those who claim to have evidence for god; but he is being honest when he claims, "I believe I have sufficient evidence for the existence of god."
So we do have absolute benchmarks for honesty.
Also, this presumes that we have no evidence for an objective external universe (we do), and that this objective external universe can yield no morality suitable for mankind.
Meanwhile, the Christian cannot escape this paradox, either. If she claims absolute knowledge of morality based on divinely-revealed truth, she must have some benchmark to prove the reality of this divinely-revealed truth. If the only evidence of divinely-revealed truth is other divinely-revealed truth, there is no benchmark to determine the reality of the divinely-revealed truth. As there is no benchmark to determine the reality of divinely-revealed truth, there is no benchmark for honesty, and the Christian is also stuck in Catch #1.
Meanwhile, materialist atheists have a benchmark for the reality of their knowledge. This is reality. As the only benchmark we have for knowledge is reality itself, the materialist atheist has the only validated benchmark of knowledge, the scientific method.
As honesty is judged by knowledge, materialist atheists have the only validated benchmark by which to judge honesty.
As proven above, the materialistic atheist is in a much stronger position to judge moral honesty than any morality based on revelation. As the Christian moralist is caught in the paradox of divine revelation, she is more likely to produce a Type 1 paradox than a materialistic atheist.
As materialistic atheists base their moral position on empiricism and logic, they are in a much stronger position to judge morality of certain ethical precepts. The fact there is overlap in some morality between materialistic atheists and Christianity simply indicates that some Christian ethical precepts are correct. In other precepts, they are incorrect.
For instance, a materialistic atheist can provide a logical sociological and evolutionary argument for acceptance of homosexuality. A Christian cannot give a similiarly-logical argument against homosexuality, and resorts to illogical statements like, "If we were all homosexual, the human race would die!" Yes, but if we were all plumbers, the human race would also die. This is an illogical statement. So is, "But marriage has always been defined as being between one man and one woman!" As an appeal to tradition, this argument is neither logical nor even true; marriage has often in the past been defined as being between one man and many women, for instance. In the end, revealed ethics are often unsupportable by reason.
This case also proves that there is a possible objective morality based on logic and empirical evidence, while revelation has no such support.
As all but a portion of Premise (a) is fallacious, this argument is completely void of intellectual rigour. The implied arguments (that atheism led to Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer, that there can be no objective morality without god) have been so thoroughly debunked by logic and empirical evidence that they are hardly worth debate.
The pseudo-logical presentation (rife with philosophic missteps and a dreadful lack of understanding of atheism and materialism, as well as an overconfidence in the philosophic strength of his own revelatory position) was fun, but certainly contained nothing novel nor particularly interesting. Well, the level of his ignorance of atheism coupled with his arrogant assurance of his knowledge was interesting, but not surprising.
And the logic was, well, deeply flawed.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
GARRRR! I've been Poed!
Damnit all. He's good.
[EDIT addendum]
I might've known when he mentioned Dahmer, but Pharyngula quoted someone who actually used that argument.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Guys, please feel free to go there too. I get quite comfortable on my own turf and I like to go off campus and take the fight to the street as well.
I didn't bother deconstructing the post and merely called it what it was, an outdated and throughly thrashed smear campaign peice of theocratic propaganda.
"Ethics" is merely the natural eb and flow of how humans get along, and is not based on a label and is not a monopoly of a label that invented "ethics".
"ethics" was not invented, it is merely part of natural human behaivor independent of label.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Thanks for running through that mess with a fine tooth comb. I always enjoy reading your posts. I thought about doing it but I didn't have the patience. Once I saw the substitution of humanism for atheism I thought to myself, "do I want to pick through this, or do I want to watch the Daily Show."
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
I am with you on this. I do not have the patience for this. After you have played the chess game so many times you still realize that they have no way to replicate or falsify the magical claims.
How would this prove that ghost sperm exists or that human flesh survives rigor mortis?
It is like trying to convince a child that Santa does not exist after they have written a novel apologizing for his existance.
If I could go back in time and thank Occham, I would.
But, I have been a bad heathen, and maybe I do lack ethics, because I have not watched the Daily Show in quite a while. WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Well I don't believe in absolute morality it evolves like all human ideas building on the past without any definite path to the future (same as life itself).
Not only do I not believe in it I'm not convinced most religious people do. You are absolutely not going to get objective morality in any religious text, there simply is no constistancy in the bible and the rest,. Lots of contradicting opinions which even religious people pick and choose from.
What was good 200 years ago is seen as evil now, what we see as good now may make as appear as a bunch of savages to those in 2209
I believe it is immoral to intentionally cause suffering to another with out consent, for the sole purpose of self gratification.
This is an example of an absolute moral rule that most but not all will agree with.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Okay, I stopped reading when I reached this BS in the first paragraph. Hmmm, maybe I'll go this guy's website later and enact an epic smackdown.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Was that more what you had in mind? (Now I'm actually going to read the post.) I'm not sure why you can't edit your own post, unless it has to do with starting a thread.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Well in my opinion anyone who believes in the death penalty would go against that moral absolute . The point I was trying to make is saying 'atheists are evil because they believe in moral relativism' assumes 2 things all atheists are moral relativists and more to the point moral relativism is a bad thing.
Don't fight theists on their own terms fight them on ours
Capital punishment is not carried out for self gratification. It is carried out to conserve resources that would otherwise be spent imprisoning a person who was deemed unable to function peacefully in society.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
I would have to totally disagree with this, its about vengeance, making one feel good about oneself. The very fact we are disagreeing with this proves my point about moral absolutes there arent any.
Agreed. If it was 'carried out to conserve resources that would otherwise be spent imprisoning a person who was deemed unable to function peacefully in society', then we would be executing every serial offender who commits a serious crime.
It's revenge - 'an eye for an eye'
It may be revenge for some people, but do you realize how much it cost to imprison people? Would you rather society foot the bill to keep people like John Wayne Gacy and Robert Pickton alive? Together they killed nearly 100 people. I don't see why I or anybody else should have to work to provide for them. The use of Capital Punishment should be reserved for violent criminals who show no hope of rehabilitation. Places like Texas may use it as the norm, but we can't let it's implementation skew the merits of the idea.
I am not a fan of Capital Punishment, but there are some people we shouldn't allow to live, let alone feed and shelter. That money would better be spent on education which is shown to reduce violent crimes.
[Edit]
The conservative estimated cost of imprisoning a person for one year is thirty thousand dollars.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
I agree with Spike. While prisons drain funds from the country, society also deems life to be valuable, and, as such, the death penalty is only reserved for the worst offenders. If there are no moral absolutes, then, certainly, the pragmatic solution would be to assess whether the death penalty is justified on an individual basis, not just electrocute anyone that commits a "serious" crime. Furthermore, the position that the death penalty exists only as a way of satisfying petty emotional whims of tit-for-tat is simply too sweeping. Since systems only exist when they have some level of support from the masses, this further implies that every individual whom supports the death penalty is doing it for the same reasons. Sure, there are many people who do support this to enact holy vengeance upon the damned, but to nakedly assert that the entire idea is corrupt? Is this implying that there is zero rational justification for capital punishment?
Perhaps, if the real argument is whether capital punishment is ever justified and/or necessary, then discuss that instead.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I was on really using capital punishment as an example whether you agree with it or not isnt really the point, it shows morality is relative to the culture you are brought up in.
Killing a defenceless person who is not a threat to you is murder regardless of what crime they have committed. The legal system (in my country the UK) does not differentiate between a prison guard killing a child murderer and the child murderer itself. The crime is murder the punishment the same
The writer of the piece quoted by the OP makes valid remarks concerning the reconciliation of personal ethics with a universal ethical code.
That's all he gets right. The rest of his points flounder in the assumption that religion provides a universal ethical code, which it most patently does not. Every criticism he levels against the "atheists" can be levelled against the religionists who, as a general group, subscribe to a huge variety of purportedly universal codes, and within each of these codes, sub-divide further into almost as many ethical codes as there are people prepared to define them. Not only that, but these codes and the interpretation of these codes are as subject to modification and re-editing as those adopted by anyone else - they differ only in that each sub-group believes that they have "received" the code from a mythical entity and thereby renege on their responsibilities in justifying why their particular interpretations of morality should be imposed universally on everyone else.
Put simply; for his defence of a divinely provided universal code of ethics to make any sense, he would first have to provide evidence of a divinely provided universal code of ethics. He cannot, namely because such a thing does not exist. Stripped of this fallacy his essay becomes a polemic against humanity's general desire to define and codify its moral stance - a very unique position for a supposed moralist of any description to adopt.
Yet another example of how religion really can fuck up the mind.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
While I agree that society has a great affect on a persons moral beliefs I think there is a bit more to it than that. I think the main contributing factor to a persons view on Capitol Punishment is their value on life. I tend to take the position that humans are just juvenile apes with a higher (only slightly in some people) capacity for rational thought, and deserve no priority over any other animal that feels pain. As such I tend to view Capitol Punishment in a somewhat detached manner. To give you an idea of what I mean...
Think about people as if they were dogs. If you had a serial killer dog what would you do with it? What if all inhabitable land was already filled with dogs thus removing displacement as an option? Would you spend $30,000 a year to keep it alive and caged?
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
It would be nice to think people are that independent of their culture but the fact is 99.9% of Brits whether atheist, theist, left wing , right wing,black, white vote for poltiical parties that are against the death penalty, and that 99.9% of Americans whether atheist, theist, left wing etc vote for political parties that support it. Many more in both countries differ in opinions but not by enough to change voting patterns.
Morally and ethically as a quite militant atheist in the UK I am far closer in views to a religious British chrisitan than an American atheist. I've been bombarded with that culture from the day I was born and of course it changes the way I think
"According to this guy" is usually a good indication that somebody has said something stupid.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Where I live it's close to an even split with quite a large group of fence sitters. At least from what I gather from talking with people. As far as voting goes America is kind of fucked. It's largely a two party system. We're stuck in this cycle of voting to counter act other votes, rather than voting for the candidate we feel could do the best job. Americans tend to be good sheep.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
I would actually say its the 'fence sitters' that basically determine politics in any country. There are the people who determine moral relativism. There are plenty of people in the UK who gladly bring back hanging but not gladly enough to chance who they voted for. I think its a bit harsh calling Americans sheep most people are sheep despite what some would like to believe we are pack animals the group is more important than the individual
I agree with that mostly. Maybe I am being a bit harsh on Americans. It just seems that whenever I meet someone from another contry they are more intelligent than the people I'm used to dealing with. I've never been out of country though so I don't have a basis of comparison. The number people I know from other countries sure doesn't constitute a large enough sample size to make a meaningful comparison. As far as pack mantality I would agree.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Holy shit...this guy needs a job or a hobby or SOMETHING. What a waste of time.