Consistent Amoralist

[liamconnor]

A number of atheists/evolutionists or whatever have stated that "morality" is subjective: that descriptions of "evil" or "good"; "right" "wrong" are mere descriptions of sentiments. To say that the holocaust was wrong is like saying "I don't like orange juice".

My question here is not whether objective morality is right, but how or whether relativists condition their emotional responses to their philosophy.

For instance, a Christian can say with philosophical consistency that his emotional/cognitive state (say he wants to steal and knows he won't get caught) is not in line with his ethical/moral stance (stealing is wrong). Whether he will or not, his philosophy requires him to conform his emotions to his intellectual position.

How should a non-theist/atheist react to ethical situations and why should they?

Let me give an example: an atheistic parent discovers his/her daughter was the victim of a rape. The parent obviously feels all sorts of emotions. But this parent obviously cannot appeal to objective right and wrong with consistency, right? His options are;

1) Being Philosophically Consistent: he is aware that his emotions "want" to express themselves in terms of "justice" and "evil" and otherwise morally objective language; but he knows these are all "emotions". There is no real thing like "justice"; what happened to his daughter is not really "evil" any more than a lion in Africa killing a hyena is evil. Therefore, he makes his emotions conform to his philosophy.

He takes no action. He works on his emotional state so that he sees his daughter's rape in the same light as he sees his dog's cancer. Nature just taking its course.

This guy is willing to modify his behavior in light of his philosophy.

2) Being Philosophically Inconsistent: his daughter was raped and he is outraged and wants "justice". Of course, he knows that a term like "justice" is incoherent. I mean, is an alligator "unjust" for devouring a baby hyena drinking at the river? But that kind of logic doesn't modify this guys actions...or not really. Sure, on debate forums like this one, he is willing to talk about the subjectivity of morals. But when dealing with his daughter, well, "this is real life...this is my daughter...", and he is willing to talk about the reality of "right and wrong" till he is blue in the face to the courts until his daughter is vindicated and the offender is prosecuted as a "real wrong doer".

this guy's behavior is completely out of line with his philosophy.


Which one of these represents your stance?

Or how do you react to these episodes in a logical manner?

[wiploc]

If god told me to rape, would that make it right?

Then I think you would have right to that.

That's one sick religion. And you think your morality is better than ours? Pretty funny.

Basically, it seems to me that atheist is himself the one (god) who gives the rights.

You think rights are presents? "Here, have the right not to be raped. It's on me."

How would that work? And what would being a god have to do with it?

Therefore, for atheist, it appears to be a question what makes one happy.

Normally, theists claim that god knows what will make us happy, and so chooses our morality based on that. But you're saying it's something else. But if morality is not about increasing happiness (either delaying gratification to get a bigger happiness for yourself later or giving up happiness of your own to create a greater happiness for others), then what does that leave as the purpose of morality.

Does morality consist then of following orders like a guard at Auschwitz?

If morality isn't about making people happy, then what is the point? What, in your worldview, is a reason to want to be moral?

[Zzyzx]

.

If god told me to rape, would that make it right?

Then I think you would have right to that.

That's one sick religion. And you think your morality is better than ours? Pretty funny.

This illustrates that mental sickness / illness (Psychosis -- an abnormal condition of the mind that involves a "loss of contact with reality") is inherent in fanatical belief by followers of many religions.

Reality and reasoning say that rape is NOT excused or justified by claiming 'God told me to'. That defense will not hold up on court -- but it is used to justify all manner of atrocious actions.

The religion's doctrine and dogma may not condone such behaviors BUT fanatics USE the religion to 'justify' doing whatever they wish -- from murder, slavery, rape, child brides, to warfare and genocide. Unfortunately, the 'holy' literature of religions may indicate condoning such actions.

[Bust Nak]

Careful now, the claim "IF God gives you the right to rape, THEN rape is good" is in no way is a justification or excuse for rape. It's just the inevitable conclusion of the Divine Command Theory. It is not any different from the equivalent statements in other ethics systems, for example:

If you are a subjectivist, you would affirm that "IF I approve of rape, THEN rape is good."

If you are an utilitarian, you would affirm that "IF rape maximizes wellbeing, THEN rape is good."

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 23 by Bust Nak]

It's just the inevitable conclusion of the Divine Command Theory.

While I can agree to this, as a factual statement...this just shows how empty DCT is and what it does to the minds of...certain people who shall not be named now.

If you are a subjectivist, you would affirm that "IF I approve of rape, THEN rape is good."

What about the subjective feelings of the victim? Why does the approval of the rapist, trump the disapproval of the rape victim?

If you are an utilitarian, you would affirm that "IF rape maximizes wellbeing, THEN rape is good."

Arguments can be had here.

However, we are not arguing utilitarianism. Someone earlier, whom I shall not dignify with a name, advanced what is essentially DCT. Other people up above said some of what I wish to say. The rest of what I want to say...I'd like that person to go to a rape crisis center and tell the people there that if God commands someone to do rape...then that person is in the right, and see the responses this person shall get.

[Bust Nak]

While I can agree to this, as a factual statement...this just shows how empty DCT is and what it does to the minds of...certain people who shall not be named now.

There is no real problem with this unless said person also believe God gave them the right to rape.

What about the subjective feelings of the victim?

I would take the feelings of the victim into account when I evaluate the situation.

Why does the approval of the rapist, trump the disapproval of the rape victim?

Why indeed. I said, if I approve of rape, as opposed to if the rapist approved of rape.

I'd like that person to go to a rape crisis center and tell the people there that if God commands someone to do rape...then that person is in the right, and see the responses this person shall get.

I suspect it would generate the same responses had I went up to them and said if I approved of rape, then rapists are in the right; the same responses had a utilitarian went up to them and said if rape maximises wellbeing, then rapists are in the right; or indeed the same responses if logician said to them if rape is moral then the rapists are in the right. If they get angrhy, does that stop "if rape is moral then rapist are in the right" any less a tautology?

Not exactly relevant what emotional responses one gets.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

...
Let me give an example: an atheistic parent discovers his/her daughter was the victim of a rape. The parent obviously feels all sorts of emotions. But this parent obviously cannot appeal to objective right and wrong with consistency, right? His options are;

1) Being Philosophically Consistent: he is aware that his emotions "want" to express themselves in terms of "justice" and "evil" and otherwise morally objective language; but he knows these are all "emotions". There is no real thing like "justice"; what happened to his daughter is not really "evil" any more than a lion in Africa killing a hyena is evil. Therefore, he makes his emotions conform to his philosophy.

Naw, justice here is to track down my daughter's rapist, and do me some rapin' right back for her.

Here my philosophy guides my response, not my emotion, where "an eye for an eye" can be quite effective in deterence to future daughter rapers.

Or how do you react to these episodes in a logical manner?

"You" not directed at OP, and I know he knows it ain't...

I react in a manner that's logically consistent with my philosophy of if it is you rape my daughter, I don't care if I'm happy ya did, or sad ya did, I'm gonna hunt you down and rape you right on back, so's it is you can feel the pain, emotional or otherwise, of what it is you inflicted on another'n.

[1213]

Sure, not that much different from what theists believe, for you, God gives the rights, it's a question what makes God happy; for us, we give the rights, it's a question what makes us happy. Given the context of this discussion, do you see that as inconsistent and/or amoral?

Moral that is based on feelings seems to be inconsistent, because good and right depends on how person feels in different situations. Person can feel good when he is doing himself wrongly, but when somebody else does wrongly, it doesn’t feel good and then good and right suddenly changes. That seems to be the case often, but I have not enough knowledge to claim it is always so. Also, it is possible that not all atheists think or act like that. But the atheism itself has nothing that could quid in moral situations, it depends on atheist’s feelings and feelings can change much depending on the situation.

[1213]

If god told me to rape, would that make it right?

Then I think you would have right to that.

There are things I want to say in response to this but I won't. Mainly because it would bring the mods down on me.

I hope all readers notice, I don't support rape and I don't think Bible or God supports it. I only answered to hypocritical question that I think is in no way relevant. And even if God would give the right for rape, I wouldn’t think it is good thing to rape.

[1213]

How would that work? And what would being a god have to do with it?

God is basically the highest authority that defines good and right.

Normally, theists claim that god knows what will make us happy, and so chooses our morality based on that. But you're saying it's something else. But if morality is not about increasing happiness (either delaying gratification to get a bigger happiness for yourself later or giving up happiness of your own to create a greater happiness for others), then what does that leave as the purpose of morality.

It seems to me that many God’s commandments don’t make people happy. All murderers and thefts and liars don’t seem to be happy that the things they want to do are not accepted. Happiness seems to be very subjective and therefore I don’t think it is the basis of good and right.

If morality isn't about making people happy, then what is the point? What, in your worldview, is a reason to want to be moral?

My reason to be moral is that I see it good and right. If I for example don’t want anyone to murder me, I don’t do it also, because else I would give right to others to kill me. Whatever right I take to myself, I also give to others, because there is no way how I could say, I have right to it, but others don’t have.

But if you think happiness is good basis for moral, you are free to keep that. I just don’t see how it could work well, because happiness is subjective and some people could be happy about things that I think are evil.

[wiploc]

If god told me to rape, would that make it right?

Then I think you would have right to that.

There are things I want to say in response to this but I won't. Mainly because it would bring the mods down on me.

I hope all readers notice, I don't support rape and I don't think Bible or God supports it.

Granted.

Please assume the same of us.

I only answered to hypocritical question that I think is in no way relevant.

Isn't it your position that morality comes from gods? We want to know how that works. If god forbade something you thought was good, would you then think it was bad? If god required something you think is bad, will you then think it is good?

So we pick the example of rape because most people agree that it is bad. That allows us the ability to discuss the nature of morality without having to take time out to argue about whether our example is good or bad.

And even if God would give the right for rape, I wouldn’t think it is good thing to rape.

So now it's like you no longer think morality comes from god. Which proves the relevance of the example. If you only believe god's rules when they happen to agree with your pre-existing opinion, then you aren't really basing your morality on god, right?