Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 22:38:09 GMT -5
I did it the long way. I clicked "quote" on your reply. Then I copied and then pasted on my reply post and highlighted and clicked on "insert quote. I was able to reply way down here and I think this is working. I didn't get your avatar but I colored the first line blue. Whew, after all that work, I've got to go rest now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2013 22:00:08 GMT -5
Athiesm has nothing to say of morality. Morality has no part in the absence of belief in god or gods. Once you have got that out of the way then you can start to unpick (if you think it might be profitable) how people with different outlooks justify their morality. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But, Arthur, famed atheist, Sam Harris ( The End of Faith; Letter to a Christian Nation) disagrees with you. From his The Moral Landscape - How Science Can Determine Human Values: Moral relativism, however, tends to be self-contradictory. Relativists may say that moral truths exist only relative to a specific cultural framework--but this claim about the status of moral truth purports to be true across all possibe frameworks. In practice, relativism almost always amounts to the claim that we should be tolerant of moral difference because no moral truth can supercede any other. And yet this commitment to tolerance is not put forward as simply one relative preference among others deemed equally valid. Rather, tolerance is held to be more in line with the (universal) truth about morality than intolerance is. The contradiction here is unsurprising. Given how deeply disposed we are to make universal moral claims, I think one can reasonably doubt whether any consistent moral relativist has ever existed. Does no one really not want to comment on this post?
|
|
|
Post by mikkel on Jun 9, 2013 11:00:30 GMT -5
]Does no one really not want to comment on this post? Well, I can try. It is all about the difference between objective and subjective. Part 1: An example with physics - whether I can take off from the ground only using my body as to try to fly or that I will remain on the ground, is objective because I can't alter what goes on simply by using my brain. An example with Hitler - whether I think/feel Hitler was evil depends on if I actually think/feel Hitler was evil. That is subjective, because I can respectively think/feel Hitler was evil; good or refrain from placing an evaluation on Hitler or what he caused. Rather I can state that I don't like (an emotion in me) what he did and that I would have tried to kill him if given a relevant chance. Part 2: Naive relativism is a form of ethical universalism, namely that all moral/ethical claims are equally good. Another form of relativism states that all moral/ethical claims are equally as how they take place, i.e. qua being subjective, but that there are no objective criteria to evaluate them against each other. That is to say any evaluation of all moral/ethical claims takes place subjectively. I'll keep it short and simple: how does atheism explain its belief in relative morality because of their belief that morality differs and is valid according to the beliefs in various cultures and at the same time believe absolutely in no religion and/or any kind of god/creator/higher power and no culture should. How is that at all logical? Athiesm has nothing to say of morality. Morality has no part in the absence of belief in god or gods. Once you have got that out of the way then you can start to unpick (if you think it might be profitable) how people with different outlooks justify their morality. Versus: Lily, the "trick" to understand this is in this sentence: "Given how deeply disposed we are to make universal moral claims..." it doesn't follow that there are true universal moral claims. Rather universal moral claims are no different that claims about that God exists. In both cases they appear to subjective, but if it is natural to make universal moral claims then you should also be able to observe that across the divide between atheism and religion and that appears to be the case. It appears that there are very few strong moral/ethical relativists and subjectivists in general and even among atheists and skeptics you can find moral/ethical universalists.
|
|