I can think of many situations where taking a life is a moral good. If a crowd of innocent people are being fired on by a terrorist it is heroic for a policeman to shoot him dead.
Posts by cofty
-
210Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
-
-
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
-
-
cofty
John. The challenge is how we maximise the well being of conscious creatures.
Harvesting millions of stem cells from blastula offers the hope of curing terrible diseases. The rewards are incalculable.
You want to prohibit that based on a whole series of assertions about souls, limbo, life after death etc.
If we are to take your concerns into consideration when making this decision you need to offer objective evidence. Its a perfectly reasonable request.
This is the perfect illustration of "absolute morality" based on dogma about a theoretical perfect deity versus secular morality based on objective facts.
Ruby please let's stick to the topic. Morality without Deity.
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
-
-
cofty
Evidence?
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
-
-
cofty
Please remember the topic is Morality Without Deity.
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
-
-
cofty
For the sake of discussing the moral rather than practical issues let's look at the following scenario. If there are details that you doubt then treat it as a thought-experiment.
Stem-cell research offers the way to cure a range of debilitating diseases. No other effective treatments are possible. Human stem-cells are harvested from the blastula and grown in culture to create many generations of new cells. The original cells can produce millions of undifferentiated stem-cells.
From a secular perspective approving stem-cell research seems like a moral good. The original blastula are left over from fertilisation treatment. By harvesting the cells countless numbers of humans will receive treatment to cure or alleviate real suffering.
From the perspective of "absolute morality" things look different. The blastula assumes all the rights and sacredness of an adult human and stem-cell research becomes a moral evil.
The consequences of this debate are not hypothetical. How can you justify your position and show that it is more moral. In other words how is it more effective in promoting the well-being of conscious creatures?
-
39
Trinity...cross...Does it matter?
by NikL ini've been thinking about this for a while.. did jesus diee on a cross?
does it really matter?
it doesn't change anything that i can see.. is god a trinity?
-
-
cofty
What do you think?
I think your post reveals a lot of presuppositions.
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
-
-
cofty
John in my previous post above I outlined the big picture, describing the key principles that divide us.
You ignored all of it in favour of bickering over minor details relating to stem cell research.
My challenge remains completely unanswered - If your system of morality is superior to a secular one that takes no account of god then you should be able to powerfully demonstrate that this is so.
If you really want to discuss the question of the sacredness of a zygote you could acknowledged the points I made earlier...
a fertilised egg might split days later and become two or more people. Where and when did the extra souls come from?
Most zygotes fail before implantation - where did all those souls go and why?
Sometimes two fertilised eggs will fuse creating a chimera. The person will develop normally. How many souls do they have? etc etc etc.
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
-
-
cofty
How is that possible without abortion
In vitro fertilisation.
Your absolute morality - based on an anti-scientific dogma about a soul - forbids it.
In my world it is a wonderful moral good.
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
-
-
cofty
If you are correct then you should be able to demonstrate that your system is superior. It should demonstrably lead to more reliable moral decisions. - Me
I think this is an oversimplification. - John Mann
You keep using this phrase as an excuse to ignore every one of my arguments. Why? If I misrepresent your views correct me. I have accumulated many, many evidence-based arguments in this thread which you have not even attempted to answer.
There is nothing simplistic about my challenge.
Your Position
You assert that our moral decisions ought to be rooted in the character of a good god. Your morality is "top-down". You start with things that you believe to be true about this absolute model of perfect morality, and then measure every possible action against that standard.My Position
I propose that we can better make good moral decisions with a "bottom-up" method. We begin by gathering objective facts about the impact of our proposed actions. Our decisions are then based on how we can best enhance the well being of conscious creatures.This method makes no reference to any ultimate or absolute standard or the supposed wishes of an almighty law-giver.
Let's imagine the lowest possible valley in the "moral landscape". This represents the maximum, pointless suffering for the maximum number of conscious beings. Please don't be tempted to obfuscate here, I am not describing suffering for a better purpose, just pointless, hopeless, abject misery for all.
All of our moral concerns are about moving away from this nadir.
Of course there will be times that we need to descend in order to reach a higher place - the temporary suffering of medical treatment for example - but a moral good is one that moves to a higher place in the moral landscape. One that contributes to the sum-total of well being.
I do not know any other way to make the distinction between absolute and objective morality more clear.
The Challenge
If your system of morality is superior to a secular one that takes no account of god then you should be able to powerfully demonstrate that this is so.It is a perfectly simple challenge. One that I very much look forward to taking up later this evening.
Anyway we are already talking about abortion as an example of application/demonstration of our views on morality. We can continue to use this moral dilemma. You know my position I'm totally against abortion.
Actually we have not been talking about abortion at all. I have no interest in defending abortion.
We have been talking about stem-cell research and I am happy to use that as a good example of the difference between the practical results of morals based on an absolute perfect god and the one I am defending.
Over to you.
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
-
-
cofty
That is so true Konceptual99. It well illustrates why we need an objective basis for our moral decisions.
Often it is very difficult. I suspect that is why people are often happy to settle for "god says.... the end".
It is infantalising - deliberately so. Jesus said that christians must become like little children, The epistles frequently address its readers in those terms.
It's past time to outgrow simplistic answers to moral questions. It belongs to the infancy of our species. Science has a lot to offer in terms of objective facts that we ought to take into consideration when making moral decisions. Answers based on evidence-free dogma do not deserve a hearing unless they can be reworked in terms of real consequences. Making god sad doesn't count.
John - thanks for your response. I will respond shorty.