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?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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?

What gives you the idea that non believers do not hold consistent opinions on what is acceptable behavior, and what is not? For example, non believers can look at heartless cold blooded murder and declare it to unacceptable under any circumstances. Period. Christians on the other hand can and do look at the same acts of heartless cold blooded murder and declare that heartless cold blooded murder is perfectly justified just as long as they have declared that God commanded it.

Who is the real amoralist?

[Bust Nak]

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

They should react to every ethical situations the way I deem appropriate and they should do it because I want them to.

1) Being Philosophically Consistent... 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... 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?

Neither.

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

3) Being Philosophically Consistent: lets say my daughter was raped, I would of course be outraged and want justice. Of course, I know that a term like "justice" is entirely subjective, it's all emotions, what is "unjust" according to me, might not be "unjust" according to another. Is an alligator "unjust" for devouring a baby hyena drinking at the river? Only if I deemed it so based on my personal preference. It's no different when dealing with my daughter, "this is real life...this is my daughter... and my emotion of rage is as real as it gets", and I will talk about my subjective feelings of "right and wrong" till I am blue in the face to the courts until my daughter is vindicated and the offender is prosecuted as a criminal.

I don't need modify my behavior in light of my philosophy, because they already match up 100%. I suppose that makes me a "Consistent moralist?"

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

To say that the holocaust was wrong is like saying "I don't like orange juice".

Let's consider this in terms of pure objective data.
Which results in more deaths?
A holocaust?
Or me not liking juice?

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


Which one of these represents your stance?

Well congratulations, liam, because while I do not have children...guess what? I have sisters who have gone through sexual abuse, if not full on rape (they've never indicated to me how far it went, but I strongly suspect vaginal intercouse).

I wonder...have you EVER asked an atheist/non-believer who has had loved ones raped what their state of mind is on the subject, instead of starting topics like this with a false dichotomy?

[wiploc]

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".

Let's contrast that with the Christian way of thinking. "The holocaust (and orange juice) is wrong only because my eccentric invisible companion says so. He drinks orange juice (and commits genocide) himself, so this can't be an objective morality. It is arbitrary and (since god changes his rules) capricious. But it is the one true morality! And you must abide by it!"

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.

Exactly like an atheist who believes theft is wrong.

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?

It depends what you mean by "objective." Atheist morality is objective exactly to the extent that theist morality is.

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.

The theist knows that the rapist is either a reprobate or one of the elect.

If he is one of the elect, god forgives him, and so should you and I.

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. God's will taking its apparently vicious but actually mysterious ways.

In the alternative, the rapist is a reprobate (Hellbound, not selected for Heaven regardless of anything he may decide or do in hopes of changing that). In that case, when the rapist tries to be good, he contradicts god's plan for him. God therefore darkens his counsels and hardens his heart, and sends him out to rape again. Thus, in raping your daughter, the rapist was acting in accordance with god's will.

The Christian, therefore, takes no action. He works on his emotional state so that he may see his daughter's rape in the same light as he sees his dog's cancer. God's will taking its apparently vicious but actually mysterious ways.

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

I assume William Lane Craig is lying when he says he has nothing against rape aside from the fact that his god forbids it. But, for the sake of this discussion, we'll assume he really means it.

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.

No, we don't know that.

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".

Sure, on debate forums, you can philosophically say it was god's will. But when dealing with your daughter, well, "This is real life...this is my daughter," and you are willing to talk about the reality of "right and wrong" til you are blue in the face.

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

The Christian'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?

I'm a utilitarian and a moral realist.

[Divine Insight]

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".

You are extremely misguided right off the bat. You apparently don't understand what is meant by "subjective morality". This doesn't mean that just anyone's random opinion represents what is moral or immoral.

This is especially true when you include "evolutionists" in your discussion. Those who understand evolution understand precisely how subjective morality works. And it is related to species behavior as well as cultural behavior when species are culturally separated into various groups.

You are wrong to say that this is a system based on everything being "amoral". Just because it's not "absolute" doesn't mean that it can't have a relativistic objective nature. And in fact it does. Just like Special Relativity isn't proclaiming that physics is no long "objective".

Morality is still "objective", it's just "absolute" like theists would like to believe.

You say:

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".

Clearly the Germans didn't think that the holocaust was wrong at the time. So from their relative perspective it wasn't "wrong" as far as they were concerned. In fact, Americans used to keep and beat Africans as slaves, even using Christianity and the Bible so SUPPORT their relative sense of morality! And because they were using the Bible to support this behavior they proclaimed that this was God's ABSOLUTE morality.

So clearly theists, and especially Christians have no valid arguments for their sense of morality. They will clearly do things that most people will consider to be immoral even in the name of Jesus and their Biblical God.

There is no credible argument for "Christian morality" being anything other than just another relative social construct.

[1213]

What gives you the idea that non believers do not hold consistent opinions on what is acceptable behavior, and what is not? For example, non believers can look at heartless cold blooded murder and declare it to unacceptable under any circumstances. Period. Christians on the other hand can and do look at the same acts of heartless cold blooded murder and declare that heartless cold blooded murder is perfectly justified just as long as they have declared that God commanded it.

Who is the real amoralist?

I think liamconnors post is excellent. It would be really nice to know also, when good and right are subjective opinion, who is right, atheist who thinks rape is ok, or atheist who thinks rape is not ok? How can the right be determined in that case when the persons are equal, but define good differently? Do you have any answer to these questions?

[Bust Nak]

It would be really nice to know also, when good and right are subjective opinion, who is right, atheist who thinks rape is ok, or atheist who thinks rape is not ok?

The atheist who thinks rape is not ok, is right.

How can the right be determined in that case when the persons are equal, but define good differently?

By how closely their definition of good matches mine.

Do you have any answer to these questions?

Yes. The questions were trivial.

[1213]

The atheist who thinks rape is not ok, is right.

Why it is not ok?

By how closely their definition of good matches mine.
...

So, you are the god who defines good and right for others? Really interesting. What makes you to think you are the one who is the measure of right and wrong?

[wiploc]

The atheist who thinks rape is not ok, is right.

Why it is not ok?

Rape has a strong tendency to make people unhappy.

Now what can you hold up against that as a theist justification? "Rape is disproved of by an invisible eccentric"?

Either give us a better justification, or concede that our morality is at least as good as yours.