Most atheists are more moral than many Christians.

[Autodidact]

Can we start by agreeing that killing babies, genocide, and slavery are all immoral? O.K., great, here's my argument:

For most atheists, these things are always wrong.
For many Christians, they are wrong unless God commands them, in which case they are right.
Therefore, for many Christians, immoral things are sometimes right.
It is more moral to oppose wrong all the time than some of the time.
Therefore, most atheists are more moral than many Christians.

[Autodidact]

So, richard, the best argument you have is unwarranted insults and personal attacks? You can't find any flaw with any of the premises or logic of the argument? Good to know.

[Chase200mph]

Adolph Hitler and all the petty tyrants of history would be proud of you, sir.

It took only a few minutes for someone to dig up NAZIism to justify their argument. A worthy example for denouncing all that is good and right to be sure.

Yes, and the person that did that is named richard p.

Why am I not surprised?

Because that's the best you can do?

Awesome... :2gun: :2gun:

[Chase200mph]

One mainstream theory on moral development is found in the works of Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development. Kohlberg’s demonstrates how moral development happens over a lifetime, and that it happens over the course and cause of many personal experiences.

Heinz Steals the Drug
"In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug.

The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that?" (Kohlberg, 1963).
Kohlberg wasn’t really interested in your answer, he was interested in how you arrived to that answer. Your reasoning would have shown distinctions of personal bias, cultural values not so much inherent in heuristic learning, rather the learning a youngster would experience through striving to achieve social acceptance. What does this mean? This means morals are not taught through lessons dictated by a supposed instructor or god, rather they are experienced and learned through out a lifetime and change as that life changes as a part of the ongoing process in the continual pursuit of social acceptance.

The 6m levels of development went like this…
Level 1 - Preconventional
Stage 1 - Obedience-and-Punishment Orientation
The child obeys rules to avoid punishment and there is no internalization of moral standards. The child finds it difficult to consider two points of view in a moral dilemma and instead they focus on fear of authority and avoidance of punishment as reasons for behaving morally (Berk, 2000). Pro: Theft is justified because the drug did not cost much to provide. Con: Theft is condemned because Heinz will be caught and go to jail. Stage 2 - Naive Hedonistic and Instrumental Orientation
The child becomes aware that people can have different perspectives in a moral dilemma; however, the child's behaviour is motivated by a selfish desire to obtain rewards and benefits. Although reciprocity occurs, it is self-serving, manipulative, and based on a market-place outlook. For example, "You can play with my blocks if you let me play with your cars" would be a common type of statement for children within this stage. Pro: Theft is justified because his wife needs the drug. Heinz needs his wife's companionship and help in life. Con: Theft is condemned because his wife will probably die before Heinz gets out of jail, so it will not do him much good.
Level 2 - Conventional
Stage 3 - "Good Boy" - "Nice Girl" Morality
The child is concerned with winning the approval and avoiding disapproval of others. In judging the goodness or badness of behavior, the child considers a person's intentions. The child holds the conception of a morally good person as one who possesses a set of virtues and as a result, the child places much emphasis on being "nice." Pro: Theft is justified becuase Heinz is unselfish in looking after the needs of his wife. Con: Theft is condemned because Heinz will feel bad thinking of how he brought dishonour to his family and his family will be ashamed of his act. Stage 4 - "Law-and-order" Orientation
The individual blindly accepts social convention and rules. Emphasis is on "doing one's duty," showing respect to authority, and maintaining a given social order for its own sake. Moral choices no longer depend on close ties to others at this stage and instead, rules are seen as needing to be enforced in the same manner for everyone. Pro: Theft is justified because Heinz would otherwise have been responsible for his wife's death. Con: Theft is condemned because Heinz is a lawbreaker.
Level 3 - Postconventional
Stage 5 - Social Contract Orientation
The individual believes that the purpose of the law is to preserve human rights and that unjust laws should be changed. Morality is seen as based on an agreement among individuals to conform to laws that are necessary for the community welfare. Since it is a social contract, it can be modified as long as basic rights like life and liberty are not impaired.
Stage 6 - Universal Ethical Principal Orientation
Conduct is controlled by an internalized set of ideas, which, if violated, results in self-condemnation and guilt. The individual follows self-chosen ethical principals based on abstract concepts (e.g., the equality of human rights, the Golden Rule, respect for the dignity of each human being) rather than concrete rules (e.g., the Ten Commandments). Unjust laws may be broken because they conflict with broad moral principals. Pro: Theft is justified because Heinz would not have lived up to the standards of his conscience if he had allowed his wife to die. Con: Theft is condemned because Heinz did not live up to the standards of his conscience when he engaged in stealing.

[otseng]

I submit, sir, that you are a hypocrite and a liar.

You are a liar as well

Have you put in your application for captain of the prison guards for our new gulags? Don't delay, it could be a good career move for you.

Moderator Warning


These statements are inappropriate for a civil and respectful debate. Please do not call others liars or say they should work for the gulag.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.