tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post8909274326359318432..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Atheists' Use of Moral LanguageAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-69463231715298716012009-06-15T08:48:41.977-06:002009-06-15T08:48:41.977-06:00Anonymous:
You wrote, "Suppose an individual...Anonymous:<br /><br />You wrote, "Suppose an individual accepts this definition of evil. What sort of argument can we present him with that he ought't do evil things (i.e., things motivated by, or corresponding to malleable desires...)?"<br /><br />You can find an answer to this question in the posting, <a href="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2006/12/hateful-craig-problem.html" rel="nofollow">The Hateful Craig Problem</a>Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-67576217311515810062009-06-15T07:25:06.407-06:002009-06-15T07:25:06.407-06:00Anonymous said...
"He can legitimately say, ...Anonymous said... <br /><i>"He can legitimately say, "yes I recognize that [evil act] is evil, and that people generally have reason to inhibit such behavior, and even that I might experience negative consequences as a result, so it might be pragmatic for me not to do it, but is there any reason I oughtn't do it?"</i><br /><br />There is a reason you oughtn't do it; because society imposes consequences to the (evil act). <br /><br />Thinking about an act (car theft, for example) in a non-religious way, you should not steal my car because it impinges on my desire to own and operate my car, doesn't stop the act from happening any more than god telling you that stealing my car is evil. The difference is the moral judgment is coming from a logical and non-religious view point rather than a mystical and religious view point.<br /><br />A belief in god does not inhibit a person from committing the evil act. The car thief may believe god has told him he oughtn't steal that car (thou shalt not steal is one of the first things religiously raised children learn), but it doesn't stop him from doing it. <br /><br />What I think this article is saying is that it's ok to say that act is wrong, there by imposing a moral judgment on that act, without it coming from a religious perspective. <br /><br />I'm a first time reader of your blog. Very interesting. Thank you.whatbeliefnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-49538426196683080922009-06-15T06:55:52.587-06:002009-06-15T06:55:52.587-06:00I am going to be spending the next few posts answe...I am going to be spending the next few posts answering some of the issues raised in these comments, starting with<br /><br /><a href="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2009/06/paying-penance-to-god.html" rel="nofollow">Paying Penance to God</a>Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-74997202786096751722009-06-15T03:40:38.532-06:002009-06-15T03:40:38.532-06:00Perhaps my biggest issue, when it comes to accepti...Perhaps my biggest issue, when it comes to accepting DU explanations and definitions, concerns the term "generally". Perhaps this is the vague part of the definition that Inquisitive Atheist was talking about.<br /><br />Exactly how do we decide how many contextual facts need to be considered when thinking about the morality of committing any particular action?<br /><br />How do we decide on whose desires we should be thinking about? How far into the future should the causal chain, initiated by our action, conceptually go, and which consequences within it should we consider? How would the proposed restrictions be justified?<br /><br />DU sounds good, but I just don't know how we could ever be justified in ascribing terms like "good", "bad", etc. to people and desires without having a calculus that deals with the issues, phrased in questions above, that I'm having with DU. To me, it looks like the best we could do would be to only tentatively believe the aforementioned ascriptions, were they made.Mark C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-76582941472568242442009-06-14T20:14:40.209-06:002009-06-14T20:14:40.209-06:00Inquisitive Atheist -
I forgot to address:
I once...Inquisitive Atheist -<br /><br />I forgot to address:<br /><i>I once again have to strongly disagree with your definition of evil. <br /><br />First of all it's far to vague, the phrase "malleable desires that people generally have reason to inhibit</i>"<br /><br />It's actually not vague, the definition of evil as "malleable desires that people generally have reason to inhibit" is pretty specific. It's just that it applies to a LOT of desires that makes it appear to be vague on the surface. But the word "evil" is SUPPOSED to cover all such desires.<br /><br />By way of analogy, the word "matter" also has a specific definition, but it applies to all matter in the universe, so it might appear to be vague. But it is the purpose of the word to cover all these things.Eneaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14500232958398471146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-2865421560887747782009-06-14T19:47:50.948-06:002009-06-14T19:47:50.948-06:00last post was mine, again. Getting absent-minded a...last post was mine, again. Getting absent-minded about putting my name on these. :/Eneaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14500232958398471146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-15099638831603442172009-06-14T19:47:22.434-06:002009-06-14T19:47:22.434-06:00Oh Makarios, why must you darken our doorway once ...Oh Makarios, why must you darken our doorway once again? /sigh<br /><br />Anyway, your words are the words of one who is ignorant of morality. Anyone who was ignorant of physics could say the exact same thing about physics. IE: "Who cares about about Newton's definition of gravity? Joe from next door, or even Socraties, might have one that's as good or better. If your neighbor says you don't have any knowledge of physics, your neighbor is just as correct as you are."<br /><br />Same could be said about chemistry, evolution, whatever. The fact that YOU are ignorant about a particular subject does NOT mean that there isn't truth to be found on that subject in the physical world.<br /><br />Inquisitive Atheist -<br /><br />Actually, self-flagulation is not a desire people generally have reason to encourage, no matter where or who you are. Monks in a monastary may encourage this desire, but they are wrong to do so. In general, all people have reasons to promote a desire to compensate the wronged party. Self-flagulation rarely does this.<br /><br />Remember, what desires SHOULD be promoted and what desires ARE ACTUALLY promoted are often different.<br /><br />Anon -<br /><br />Yes, Alonzo has written on this before, frequently. There is no way to reason someone like this into not doing evil. But we do have the tools to shape their desires, so they will no longer WANT to do evil. Please see the oft-cited <a href="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2006/12/hateful-craig-problem.html" rel="nofollow">Hateful Craig Problem</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-42533477703209752442009-06-14T19:22:30.314-06:002009-06-14T19:22:30.314-06:00Suppose an individual accepts this definition of e...Suppose an individual accepts this definition of evil. What sort of argument can we present him with that he ought't <em>do</em> evil things (i.e., things motivated by, or corresponding to malleable desires...)? He can legitimately say, "yes I recognize that [evil act] is evil, and that people generally have reason to inhibit such behavior, and even that I might experience negative consequences as a result, so it might be pragmatic for me not to do it, but is there any reason I <em>oughtn't</em> do it?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-42647314115605393342009-06-14T14:57:38.306-06:002009-06-14T14:57:38.306-06:00One reason that I tend to avoid words like 'ev...One reason that I tend to avoid words like 'evil' and 'virtue' is because they will immediately be related to religious belief on the part of the reader. "How can you 'believe' in evil if you don't accept jesus as your savior." Nonsense, of course, but it forestalls one avenue of argument.Sythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14177661787438712691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-9548593684621982982009-06-14T14:57:10.907-06:002009-06-14T14:57:10.907-06:00It is one of the strengths of modern behavioral sc...It is one of the strengths of modern behavioral sciences that good and evil not only do not stem from god but complement and fit in perfectly with evolution.GMRaphihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02117281825748403200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-57891153727990119522009-06-14T14:26:39.435-06:002009-06-14T14:26:39.435-06:00Props to Makarios for hitting the nail on the head...Props to Makarios for hitting the nail on the head. Alonzo I once again have to strongly disagree with your definition of evil. <br /><br />First of all it's far to vague, the phrase "malleable desires that people generally have reason to inhibit" is so vague it's borderline moral relativism.<br /><br />For example, let's say that someone wishes to lash themselves to punish themselves for a deed that they committed which they feel guilty for and to pay penance to God. If this person lived on a monastary then that action would fall under that category of a desire that people have a desire to promote, but if they were living in a secular society that would probably fall under the category of of a desire that people have a reason to inhibit.<br /><br />Your definition of good is entirely dependent on the moral atmosphere of the society that the person is living in and cannot say anything about good or evil objectively.Inquisitive Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02291881843655430666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-83133010112646554852009-06-14T13:32:31.764-06:002009-06-14T13:32:31.764-06:00The word that atheists avoid most frequently is &#...The word that atheists avoid most frequently is 'objective.' <br /><br />Most Christians know and accept that any given atheist has developed a moral and value system as good as anything Christianity promotes. Mostly because s/he stole it from the Christian influenced culture around him but, whatever. <br /><br />What the atheist lacks is a basis from which to promote h/her value system. Even Alonzo's definition of evil is just Alonzo's definition of evil. Who cares? Joe from next door or even faithless, here, might have one that's as good as or better. <br /><br />Atheist morals = desires, feelings and opinions. You might think that you have one unit of value but in a secular world, if your neighbour says you don't have any value, your neighbour is just as correct as you are.Thesauroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13305052511095551483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-84179410428657028972009-06-14T09:20:40.499-06:002009-06-14T09:20:40.499-06:00You pre-empted my own post on this topic, which, i...You pre-empted my own post on this topic, which, if I had had the time would have been a follow up to my <a href="http://impartialism.blogspot.com/2009/06/is-archbishop-of-westminster-promoting.html" rel="nofollow">Is the Archbishop of Westminster promoting evil?</a> the title alone should indicate that I agree with you!Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.com