Attn: Scott.
Therion Ware
With respect to our conversation, I'd be interested to see your
definitions of:
- morality
- moral realism
- moral progress
Thanks,
TW.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
ChuckPFb
> With respect to our conversation, I'd be interested to see your
> definitions of:
>
> - morality
>
> - moral realism
>
> - moral progress
Haven't y'all had enough punishment? You're wanting more? In my opinion,
it's highly immoral to correspond with Scott about morality.
Therion Ware
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:26:05 GMT in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, ChuckPFb ("ChuckPFb"
<nosp...@nospam2.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
Certainly. But I am British you know.
Scott
>
> With respect to our conversation, I'd be interested to see your
> definitions of:
>
> - morality
Morality is the *principle* of right and wrong behavior. The Problem is
ethics: Are these principles binding on all (objective) universally; are
they descriptive *real* standards? Or are these principles binding on nobody
but *only* prescriptive (subjective) with no *real* standards by which to
gauge a culture or one's actions by? IOW are these morals relative to
something objective (independent of opinions) or are they relative to
something subjective (dependent only on opinions)? Materialism rejects
Ethical Realism for Ethical Anti-Realism. The first is objective and the
second subjective.
>
> - moral realism
aka "objective morality" - mind independent. Aka Natural Law theory. If
morals are real and mind-independent then there is a possibility for unjust
laws. All man-made laws are also termed "positive law". Natural Laws are (in
theory) not man made but we are obliged to follow and *discover* them.
'Unjust laws' are laws the violate Natural Law. Without Natural Law (theory)
to gauge a positive law to, there is no possibility of having an unjust law;
There is only *law* of the land. In Iran, as an atheist, you'd have no legal
rights at all. An Iranian could kill you for 'just because' and would not
violate any law nor would he violate any inherent right you might think you
have because materialism also rejects Natural Rights as a Naturalistic
Fallacy. If you believe in Human Rights, you believe in, like your theistic
counterpart, a mythology. You have a *myth* by which you construct your
belief system.
Positive Law. For example: In England the positive law is driving on the
left-hand side of the road while in the USA we drive on the right-hand side.
If someone drives on the *wrong* side of the road he is violating both
positive and Natural law because he is not only violating the country's
driving laws but is also putting other lives at risk. Putting other lives in
harms way is a violation of Natural Law. It seems self-evident *but* Natural
Law Theory has fallen out of favor because there is no way to prove it using
materialistic means (within materialism). Natural Law Theory is a
Naturalistic Fallacy according to materialism.
What are the consequences of having no Natural Laws? All laws are
self-justifying. For example: The Nazis created NO unjust laws when they
created the positive law to genocide the Jews.
But if there is such a thing as moral realism then, for example, an act can
be evil irregardless of what anyone thinks about the act. To contrast using
Moral Subjectivism (which is what I assumed you were since most atheists in
a.a. claim to be), in WWII Japan invaded China. Japanese soldiers would toss
live Chinese babies into the air and bayonet them on the way down. There is
film footage of them laughing and cutting up and having a *good* time while
doing so. This act is only a materialistic act. Not any thing more. Because
materialism rejects moral realism, no act is mind-independently evil or
good.
No evil was committed *by* these soldiers since they didn't see themselves
as committing an evil act. <period> They can *rationalize* their *behavior*
(behaviorism) any way they *feel* like and it will be correct because (as
John Wilkins stated) all justifications for all moral systems are
self-contained. You might thing the act was evil but that's just your
opinion as compared to theirs. Your opinion is no better than theirs because
you have no objective value to comparatively gauge your and their opinions
to. Without that *supernatural* metaphysical realism, which is obviously
denied by materialism, all moral opinions are equivalent; none can be better
than the next. You simple prefer your moral feelings to theirs. These
soldiers violated no moral Natural Laws. How can you have moral progress
with that? You can't.
Here's a link to subjectivism:
http://www.routledge.com/philosophy/cip/et/et-02-00.htm
AT the bottom of the page is:
menu | forward =>
This set has 34 problems
Click the "forward". The problem set does a good job of explaining. It's
interesting to deliberately click on the wrong answers to read the
explanation as to why it's wrong.
I can pull up any number of links on subjectivism that give the same
arguments as this one above link. Morality in this POV is *relative* to the
individual.
If you reject this moral equivalence, then you reject the moral
non-cognitivism inherent in materialism. You factually reject materialism on
moral *grounds* (no such 'ground' exists in materialism) for favor of moral
cognitivism. IOW you factually bust your ass out of philosophical
materialism and into some dualistic/pluralistic (not necessarily theistic)
sense of reality. Technique, you can be an atheist and still reject
materialism but that would mean you'd also give up any credibility in
arguing against any other supernatural quality. Moral realism/objectivism is
a quality that does not exist in nature. Lions, to use an example, do not
commit an evil when a male genocides the previous male's cubs. Humans,
likewise, commit no evil when they genocide other members of its specie.
>
> - moral progress
In order to have *true* moral progress there needs to be at least one
metaphysical objective principle in ethics by which to measure moral systems
to. Where does this objective principle exist in a materialistic world? Any
argument you give will take you to John Wilkins' Genetic Fallacy argument.
If this principle exist, it doesn't exist as a materialistic quality/thing;
your awareness of it would be by some gnosis. Did those soldiers *really*
commit an act of evil? Did the Nazis? If materialism is true, they did not.
Since evil doesn't exist in materialism, it sounds very hypocritical to me
to hear a materialist referring to some action as if it were in *fact* an
evil. <but that's fine since, likewise, there is nothing *wrong* with being
hypocritical by Moral Subjectivism>.
That's for the Meta-ethical/physical POV. We need an objective principle to
strive for in order to make *real* progress. Let's drop down from the meta
to the normative. Can we have a normative moral progress? YOU BET WE CAN.
But in order to do so we need an *objectified* goal to strive for. Question:
Which goal? It ultimately doesn't matter because without that moral realism
all goals are ultimately equivalent.
In order to have a normative moral progress we need to change our moral
perspective from Moral Subjectivism (focus on the individual) to Cultural
Relativism (focus on the a society of link-minded individuals -- moral
intersubjectivism). The moral progress an *individual* makes is relative to
the culture he belongs to. Anyone going against his culture's normative
moral system is acting unethically by his culture -- including moral
reformers.
We can only have progress by referencing to cultural *norms*. But in
comparing one culture's moral code to another culture's code we have NO
*ground* in materialism for saying any culture is more morally progressive
than another. There is only difference in preferences by those cultures. The
Nazi, by his culturally social approval, made good moral progress by
genociding the Jews. Progress is *relative* to the culture.
http://www.routledge.com/philosophy/cip/et/et-01-00.htm
http://phil-www.tamu.edu/~b-everman/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf
>
> Thanks,
You're welcome
> "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
> - Attrib: Pauline Reage.
A prescription that has no bases to any real truth if philosophical
materialism is the true metaphysic.
Scott