harvey1 wrote:Corvus wrote:There is only one moral authority, and the only reason that you must follow him is that he wields a big stick and bestows even bigger gifts. If we ignore him, then we do so at our own peril. There can be no such thing as ultimate morality because doing so presupposes an objective value, which is nonsensical. So, live life how you want to live life. If you think you can get away with something that someone else considers evil (in their opinion of subjective evil), then that is their opinion. You can do whatever you want, so long as you can get away with it. That is the lesson from the universe. If you decide to act selfishly and don't fear the consequences, don't worry, you are free to do whatever you want. It is your decision. You don't have to follow some philosopher's view of morality, or some humanist view. We make meaning what we want it to be. You can act totally based on what you consider your interests whenever, and however you suit to do so. Don't let anyone tell you different.[/i]
The difference in our two people, though, is the perspective I gave of an atheist is consistent with the meaningless in the universe. In the case that you provided, it is not consistent with a meaningful view of the universe. A meaningful view appeals to our view that meaning is the most important quality of the universe, and therefore being consistent with that universe means that everything we do affects our relation to that overall meaning.
Appeals to our view that meaning is the most important quality of the universe? I deny that it really is a quality, of course, but just because it appeals to our view, does not mean we have to behave in accord with it. Amazingly, you are claiming subjective reasons for acting in relation this overall meaning, whatever it is, that exists in the universe.
This is why higher moral behavior for a society at large would be something you would expect since individuals in that society have good reason to reject moral temptations. The good reason is that you have to give account of your moral lapses,
Of course you do; as I said, God is an enforcer, and he sees everything. That's the supreme benefit of your divine monarch; he has more power than ordinary heads of state and privacy isn't really an issue for him.
and that moral lapses define you as an individual and put you on the outside of what is objectively important in the world.
Objectively important? Pardon me, but I find that terribly amusing, harvey! I find it almost as amusing as objective values. How do you measure objective importance? How do you establish its existence? You would make an excellent pataphysician.
On the other end, an atheist must invent what is subjectively important, and you can only hope that their view of subjective importance involves avoid certain moral temptations that would have a negative effect on others (though, not necessarily them).
Everyone must invent what is subjectively important. One still must use one's own judgement to decide whether acting in accordance with what you claim has objective importance. If an action places you outside of what is "objectively important", then that still might not be terribly important to you.
Corvus wrote:By the way, harvey, why did you italicise "want" so many times? It seems to me everyone does what they want unless they are compelled by other people to do otherwise. If I believed in god, that would still hold true. I bolded "at your own peril" because it wasn't emphasised as much as "want", and I consider it just as important, if not moreso.
The term "at your own peril" makes sense if it is
really a threatful situation to the person presented with a moral temptation. For example, if an atheist is presented with an opportunity to steal candy from a store, but the owner is an ex-marine who is known to have a temper, then it would be commonsense for the atheist to not steal candy since "at their own peril" means something in that context. However, if someone's headlights are on and you are a passerby somewhat in a rush, you would hardly be "at your own peril" if you did not try to find the person in the store who left their lights on and tell them to turn them off so their battery does not die out. This is a situation where you would have to
want to help out some anonymous stranger based on your busy schedule. If you took the consistent view that the world is meaningless and that we all have to smell the thorns, then you might be more inclined not to want to make that kind of effort.
Sure, you might. But in any case, "at your own peril" still has a great deal of significance in
most dealings in the outside world. I very rarely come across anonymous strangers who need help, and even more rare is the situation where I can do a bad thing to an anonymous stranger and get away with it without paying for it in some way.
On the other hand, if you think every action is ultimately meaningful and that's what the universe is all about--establishing meaningful actions, then it is extremely important of a priority to make that tiny effort of going out of your way to perform those little things that make the world a more meaningful place.
A more meaningful place? How can something that is defined as being meaningful be made even moreso by meaningful actions? Is meaning then a quantifiable thing?
