Got moral obligations?

[olavisjo]

If you believe that there exists an obligation to behave in a proper way then to whom or what is that obligation to?

[olavisjo]

In order for morality to exist as a fundamental part of the real world there must exist something or someone that we are obligated to. If there is nothing, then morality only exists in the imagination of people and we are free to do anything that we want to do.

That is a logical conclusion of atheism.

This conclusion may not be wrong, but it is very hard to live with because it implies that, for example, we must tolerate the views of sexuality of the pedophile equally with the views of someone like Dr. Ruth Westheimer.

So if we can't live without a basis for morality, then it may be a strong hint that there does exist something or someone that compels us to be moral, and God would be the only candidate for the role.

[Zzyzx]

.
I do not usually visit or post in the “philosophy� sub-forum because I have a limited tolerance of conjecture and pontification – or anything else that cannot be verified with factual information and observation in the real world I inhabit. I make a limited exception here by invitation.

In order for morality to exist as a fundamental part of the real world there must exist something or someone that we are obligated to. If there is nothing, then morality only exists in the imagination of people and we are free to do anything that we want to do.

That is a logical conclusion of atheism.

Are you speaking as an Atheist? On what, exactly, do you base your "interpretation" of Atheism’s conclusions?

Your claim of “logical conclusion� is not drawn from Atheism but from YOUR concepts based on YOUR background and beliefs.

Are you offering conjecture? Are you presupposing the position or conclusion of others?

Why not ASK for someone’s positions rather than project your own ideas upon others?

Notice that I do NOT identify as an Atheist – but as a Non-Theist tending toward Ignosticism (not Agnosticism – Google the term if unfamiliar).

I do NOT defend “atheism� because I recognize that the term denotes nothing more than a refusal to believe in “gods� or supernaturalism. There is nothing to defend – no body of “belief�, no dogma, no claims, nothing to sell. That is VERY different from much or most of theology – which DOES attempt to convince others to “believe on faith alone� incredible tales and claims that cannot be substantiated.

This conclusion may not be wrong, but it is very hard to live

Perhaps in YOUR OPINION “it is very hard to live with�. Have you consulted opinions other than your own – have you studied the matter rather than making conjectures?

with because it implies that, for example, we must tolerate the views of sexuality of the pedophile equally with the views of someone like Dr. Ruth Westheimer.

Have you asked Non-Theists if that is their conclusion? OR have you simply assigned a “conclusion� to others?

So if we can't live without a basis for morality, then it may be a strong hint that there does exist something or someone that compels us to be moral, and God would be the only candidate for the role.

Even if your conjecture was true (which you have NOT established), how can anyone say WHICH “GOD� is involved?

Thousands of different “gods� are or have been venerated, loved, feared, worshiped by humans. There is no assurance that any of them is anything more than figments of human imagination and invention.

[Zzyzx]

.

If you believe that there exists an obligation to behave in a proper way then to whom or what is that obligation to?

I do not use the term "believe" applied to myself.

I do, however, conclude that there are valid REASONS to behave in productive or positive ways toward others -- and do so based upon my own reasoning and decisions.

I do NOT do so from a sense of OBLIGATION, but on the basis of decisions that I make personally which evolve from my life experience and my personal value system.

No "god" or preachers are needed to tell me how to treat others. I recognize that others may feel a need for external guidance; however, that is their choice, not mine.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

If you believe that there exists an obligation to behave in a proper way then to whom or what is that obligation to?

Ourselves, our families, society, and the world at large.
-------------------------------------------------
From Post 2:

In order for morality to exist as a fundamental part of the real world there must exist something or someone that we are obligated to. If there is nothing, then morality only exists in the imagination of people and we are free to do anything that we want to do.

We are morally obligated to our peers because we are a social creature, and there are consequences for violating these moral precepts. No matter how many theists like to imply atheists have no basis for their morality, it is a fact that atheists are part of this social culture in which we all find ourselves.

That is a logical conclusion of atheism.

No, that is a distortion promoted by some theists in an obvious attempt to malign folks who don't believe their god claims.

This conclusion may not be wrong, but it is very hard to live with because it implies that, for example, we must tolerate the views of sexuality of the pedophile equally with the views of someone like Dr. Ruth Westheimer.

Not at all, and shame on you for saying it.

The recent pedophilia scandal in the Catholic hierarchy shows pedophilia is an otherwise human condition, and all sectors are afflicted by this scourge.

This atheist rejects pedophilia based on the knowledge that young kids are unable to make an informed decision. I'm sick and tired of olavisjo and others making these sorts of slanderous arguments, and consider it nothing more than an attempt to smear folks who don't accept his particular religious views.

It would be quite different if olavisjo could offer us some form of evidence his favored god has an opinion on the actions of humans, instead of this continual campaign of smearing atheists as amoral or accepting of pedophilia. I am disgusted to think one would have to stoop so low in order to try to show their favored god exists.

Go holler at those Muslims that practice marriage to prepubescent girls before you try to malign atheists. Go holler at the Catholic church for hiding and covering up pedophilia among its ranks before you try to malign atheists.

So if we can't live without a basis for morality, then it may be a strong hint that there does exist something or someone that compels us to be moral, and God would be the only candidate for the role.

How is it a "hint" when the only theistic "basis" for morality are the tales of men?

>Lots of opinion based on a lifetime of amateur study and observation, presented as reasonably and logically derived<
We can understand pedophilia in terms of evolution, where males typically seek a young image as healthier than an "old hag" image, as that young, healthier image is an indication of better genetics. As in so many human conditions, there will be those whose idea of young is another's too young, and as individuals we contribute to the social conversation in this regard.

Notice in some societies or cultures there is no "shame", no social condemnation for marrying one of prepubescent age, and even here, there will be some of those that would accept the marriage, but expect any consummation to occur later, and even much later.

In "Western" society, the majority has determined that sex with prepubescent or 'underage' children should be off-limits, even while the laws of various nations, and regions within those nations have made their own determination of where such cut-offs should be placed, even using "staggered ages" where you must be within a certain age group to legally have sex within that age group.

We can notice also there can be an apparent double standard, where females who are attracted to much younger individuals will be looked at differently than males who do the same. What male on this forum would have jumped at the chance to have sex with his "crush" teacher, at any age? But notice, the women who would condemn these acts will typically be just as harsh toward the female violator as the male. We are simply "wired differently", with different evolutionary aims.

I'll offer my "policy", and see how it compares to others. I wouldn't have sex with a girl I thought or knew to be 15 years or less, under any circumstances. If I know a girl to be between 16 and pre-18, I would not pursue that girl, I wouldn't flirt, I would do nothing out of the ordinary. But let that girl drop her frillies in front of me and I'm aiming to please at least one of us. From 18 and above I will pursue till I've won or certain it is a useless endeavor. I wonder how many will consider me a 'creep' for that policy. How many will consider me a pedophile for accepting and acting on the advances of a 16-18 year old girl?

So we see, I have my moral position, and others will have theirs. From these individual positions there will rise a social consensus, typically expressed through the majority, and that consensus will be enforced through various laws and social consequences.

I'll leave it at that for now, and I'm prepared to support my opinion with facts, reason and logic where available.

[BwhoUR]

.

I do NOT defend “atheism� because I recognize that the term denotes nothing more than a refusal to believe in “gods� or supernaturalism. There is nothing to defend – no body of “belief�, no dogma, no claims, nothing to sell. That is VERY different from much or most of theology – which DOES attempt to convince others to “believe on faith alone� incredible tales and claims that cannot be substantiated.
.[/quote]

Okay this is suicide I know, but Atheism TO ME as I have pointed out before, also carries within it's meaning the beliefs of people in history who have self-identified themselves as Atheists before there were so many other terms for it and that is why I identify myself as an Atheist.

So back to the thread before I get clobbered, morals are subjective, if it is moral to kill your child if god tells you to do it, I am not moral.

J.L. Mackie, in The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and Against the Existence of God, says there are 4 main kinds of views about morals:

1. Rules and principles comanded by a god;
2. Principles formulated or discovered by human reason or intellect;
3. Principles that are created and SUSTAINED in existence by a god; and
4. Morality is a human, social product developed biologically and by social evolution.

My belief is that human reason, intellect and social evolution are the underlying foundation for current morality. Sex before marriage was in the 50's immoral, now it's just a good idea.

[BwhoUR]

This conclusion may not be wrong, but it is very hard to live with because it implies that, for example, we must tolerate the views of sexuality of the pedophile equally with the views of someone like Dr. Ruth Westheimer.

Does the headline "priest molests 200 deaf children" scream morality to you?

[JoeyKnothead]

This conclusion may not be wrong, but it is very hard to live with because it implies that, for example, we must tolerate the views of sexuality of the pedophile equally with the views of someone like Dr. Ruth Westheimer.

Does the headline "priest molests 200 deaf children" scream morality to you?

What really gets me is that it is more often than not some theists that think up these gross scenarios and try to pin them on atheists.

Pedophilia will basically be found in all groups, across all cultures, and across all philosophies. This doesn't mean atheists are any less moral, or any more moral, nor does it mean theists are any more or less moral. We are all humans, atheist and theist alike - the whole dang lot of us - but sadly some of us are just despicable.

Repeated attempts to explain morality in regards to atheism seem to fall on deaf ears when we atheists show we can indeed have a valid, honorable, and legitimate moral ethos.

I'm frankly getting tired of having to repeat it, and repeat it to the same individual.

What I'm getting out of this is, "I can't possibly fathom how those eeevil atheists can consider themselves moral, so no matter how many times they profess a sense of duty to society at large, just like my sense of duty to a god I can't show exists I will ignore it, and continue to come up with the most vile, gross, slanderous scenarios I can in order to make atheists look bad".

I'm sick of it.

[BwhoUR]

Well said, I'm sick of it too.

Maybe what they mean and we can do a completely unscientific study on this is:

If you were religious and you became an atheist, was there a period of time that you just went wild, like a kid in a candy store, because you "thought" you were no longer bound by morality? If so, what was the result, did you find a moral compas. (this eludes to the problem of tying in religion to morality)
OR
If you are religious, how moral do you think you are and what is religion preventing you from doing that is immoral?

[Goat]

This conclusion may not be wrong, but it is very hard to live with because it implies that, for example, we must tolerate the views of sexuality of the pedophile equally with the views of someone like Dr. Ruth Westheimer.

Does the headline "priest molests 200 deaf children" scream morality to you?

What really gets me is that it is more often than not some theists that think up these gross scenarios and try to pin them on atheists.

.

What gets me is the recent comments by some of the Vatican priests that tried to equate the accusations of child abuse with violence and hate that was directed at the Jews. The Vatican is responding to the accusations of child abuse with 'blame of victim' and saying the victims are prejudiced.