How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[Miles]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

If atheism is true, there is no right or wrong, at least not in any helpful sense.

Really! I'm surprised because the only thing atheism speaks to is a lack of belief in god, and that's it. Not a thing about right or wrong at all.

.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

If atheism is true, there is no right or wrong, at least not in any helpful sense.

Really! I'm surprised because the only thing atheism speaks to is a lack of belief in god, and that's it. Not a thing about right or wrong at all.

I'm not making any comment about that definition of 'atheism'. I'm using 'atheism' in its traditional philosophical sense, which is the belief that God does not exist. If God does not exist, then there is no right or wrong in any helpful sense.

[Miles]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

If atheism is true, there is no right or wrong, at least not in any helpful sense.

Really! I'm surprised because the only thing atheism speaks to is a lack of belief in god, and that's it. Not a thing about right or wrong at all.

I'm not making any comment about that definition of 'atheism'. I'm using 'atheism' in its traditional philosophical sense, which is the belief that God does not exist. If God does not exist, then there is no right or wrong in any helpful sense.

Why not? Are you under the impression that me having sex with my mother would be both right and wrong without god's existence? Or that helping a child from drowning is neither right or wrong? How about turning left instead of right to get to Denver Colorado? It would certainly be helpful if I made the right decision wouldn't it? Yet in order to do so you imply we need god's existence. Just how does that work?


.

[The Tanager]

Why not? Are you under the impression that me having sex with my mother would be both right and wrong without god's existence? Or that helping a child from drowning is neither right or wrong? How about turning left instead of right to get to Denver Colorado? It would certainly be helpful if I made the right decision wouldn't it? Yet in order to do so you imply we need god's existence. Just how does that work?

We all know that getting to Denver isn't the right/wrong we are talking about here. We are talking about moral choices. If atheism is true, then you having sex with your mother is neither right nor wrong, because there is no objective standard to judge it right or wrong against. The same with helping a child drowning. It may be subjectively right or wrong, but such a concept is entirely unhelpful, as it just tells us what certain people like or dislike, not whether they should do such-and-such or refrain from it.

Why would you say one ought to help that drowning child?

[Compassionist]

Why not? Are you under the impression that me having sex with my mother would be both right and wrong without god's existence? Or that helping a child from drowning is neither right or wrong? How about turning left instead of right to get to Denver Colorado? It would certainly be helpful if I made the right decision wouldn't it? Yet in order to do so you imply we need god's existence. Just how does that work?

We all know that getting to Denver isn't the right/wrong we are talking about here. We are talking about moral choices. If atheism is true, then you having sex with your mother is neither right nor wrong, because there is no objective standard to judge it right or wrong against. The same with helping a child drowning. It may be subjectively right or wrong, but such a concept is entirely unhelpful, as it just tells us what certain people like or dislike, not whether they should do such-and-such or refrain from it.

Why would you say one ought to help that drowning child?

Most people would consider saving lives and improving lives to be good and killing lives and worsening lives to be bad. Why is this not enough? How is the morality given by religion better than secular morality?

[The Tanager]

Most people would consider saving lives and improving lives to be good and killing lives and worsening lives to be bad. Why is this not enough? How is the morality given by religion better than secular morality?

What if someone doesn’t consider saving lives (or a kids’ life or one particular life) and improving lives (or kids’ lives or some lives) to be good? Why are we right and they are wrong?

Once we explore possible atheistic groundings I will gladly explore why I think a God would fare better in grounding objective morality, but I think we need to focus on one at a time.

[Compassionist]

Most people would consider saving lives and improving lives to be good and killing lives and worsening lives to be bad. Why is this not enough? How is the morality given by religion better than secular morality?

What if someone doesn’t consider saving lives (or a kids’ life or one particular life) and improving lives (or kids’ lives or some lives) to be good? Why are we right and they are wrong?

Once we explore possible atheistic groundings I will gladly explore why I think a God would fare better in grounding objective morality, but I think we need to focus on one at a time.

It's a matter of principles. Different organisms have different principles. The morality followed by elephants is different from the morality followed by meerkats. Alpha female meerkats murder the babies of other female meerkats. They do this to give their own babies an advantage. Elephants never do this. Even members of the same species can have different principles. For example, I am a human and a vegan. I want to be an autotroph but I can't be. Being a vegan is the closest I can come to being an autotroph. I am all too aware that 99.61% of the 8 billion 21 million humans currently alive are not yet vegan. It pains me that they don't care about the suffering and death they cause to sentient organisms but I have not yet been able to convince all humans to go vegan. You said to me on another thread that you think there is nothing wrong with killing sentient organisms for food. I think you are wrong. We have different thoughts. If I had your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences I would be you and have your thoughts and be a non-vegan like you. If I had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of an alpha female meerkat, I would have murdered the babies of other meerkats. All biological organisms lack free will. We make inevitable choices determined by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. I cry daily about all the suffering, injustice, and deaths in the world. I would love to go back in time and prevent all suffering, injustice, and deaths but I can't. I would love to make all living things forever happy but I can't.

Life as I know it
Might is right,
Adapt or die.
The world works thus.
The evil prospers,
The innocent perishes.
Doomed we are,
To suffer,
And to die.

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics and https://fot.humanists.international

[JoeyKnothead]

Most people would consider saving lives and improving lives to be good and killing lives and worsening lives to be bad. Why is this not enough? How is the morality given by religion better than secular morality?

What if someone doesn’t consider saving lives (or a kids’ life or one particular life) and improving lives (or kids’ lives or some lives) to be good? Why are we right and they are wrong?

Once we explore possible atheistic groundings I will gladly explore why I think a God would fare better in grounding objective morality, but I think we need to focus on one at a time.

Your problem here is that at best you can only present a god's opinion, and appeal to that god as the smartest one in the room. What happens if Difflugia shows up? The Barbarian? DrNoGods? brunumb? Purple Knight? William? TRANSPONDER? Who am I missing?

On matters of opinion, there's no wrongn's, only bettern's

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #17]

I’m confused. I’m claiming that atheism leads to subjective morality, not objective morality, you seemed to be contesting that, but your response seems to be agreeing with that.

[The Tanager]

Your problem here is that at best you can only present a god's opinion, and appeal to that god as the smartest one in the room. What happens if Difflugia shows up? The Barbarian? DrNoGods? brunumb? Purple Knight? William? TRANSPONDER? Who am I missing?

On matters of opinion, there's no wrongn's, only bettern's

That’s not at all what I would appeal to. But we are focusing on atheism right now. I think we agree there that if atheism is true, then morality is subjective.