The official quoted the suspect as saying "I was shocked that she was pregnant. I was enraged and shot her dead because she did something shameful."
No further comment needed.
Monday, September 05, 2011
58 comments:
PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.
This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Another sad example of religious morals..
ReplyDeleteI also find this profoundly ironic
"Murder is punishable by death in Jordan but in so-called "honour killings" courts can commute or reduce sentences, particularly if the victim's family asks for leniency.
Between 15 and 20 women died in such murders each year in the Arab kingdom, despite government efforts to curb such crimes."
Doesn't seem like their trying to curb them at all, but that's what you get when your culture is steeped in superstitious bile.
One way to get a parent to murder their own child is to legalize and marginalize abortion. Why aren't you guys using your influence to increase awareness about this injustice? (180movie.com)
ReplyDeleteWe're not pro-abortion (most of us). In fact, we want to minimize it too. It's more like an amputation - we'd rather not have them, but sometimes it's necessary.
ReplyDeleteWe're all for adequate effective sex education and contraceptives to minimize unwanted or dangerous pregnancies, but once again, the same people who are vehemently opposed to abortion (the religious right) are also the ones actively taking steps to maximize the frequency of this problem.
...And we do try to increase awareness of this problem.
I would say that the only thing worse than an abortion is an unwanted pregnancy. At least with abortion, there won't be a person to endure the harsh realities of being born into a hostile environment to its very existence, or two be separated and shuffled around overwhelmed adoption agencies, potentially never having a foster family.
ReplyDelete..and of course the religious right are making that even harder by disallowing gay parents from adopting, because apparently homosexuals are child molesters or something.
For all intents and purposes, the religious right hates babies.
@jtcowles: Double edged sword there. If you outlaw abortion you impose on a woman's liberty. Some would argue that a fetus is not a "child" until it is born, or until a certain trimester.
ReplyDeleteI think "honour" killings are one of those cases where it is difficult to tell whether a given practice is part of a religion or part of a the norms of a society, irrespective of religious denomination. A journalist called Robert Fisk wrote a series of articles about the issue last year:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-crimewave-that-shames-the-world-2072201.html
JT,
ReplyDeleteYou are making morality statements. Do you have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?
jtcowles: Since you're not exactly being subtle about where you're coming from or where you're trying to go with this, allow me to save time and tedium by detouring you to this article at our wiki, Iron Chariots. Cheers.
ReplyDeleteI can bet my house, that the cristians would say:
ReplyDelete"Thats why slam is bad, but cristianity is all about love and forgive".
yeah...right...thats until someone hear a voice telling them to kill theyr child...
From the AFP article: "Murder is punishable by death in Jordan but in so-called "honour killings" courts can commute or reduce sentences, particularly if the victim's family asks for leniency."
ReplyDeleteWhat. The. Fuck.
Outlawing abortion doesn't make it go away, doesn't even reduce it at all, just causes more desperate women to die by taking the matter in their own hands. The data proves it. Even if fetuses are viewed as full human beings abortion laws still saves lives. It is scientifically proven, and pretending that there is any controversy about the facts is by itself an immoral position.
ReplyDeleteThis is another one of those cases where I just don't get it. I can understand that you might be shocked by something which goes against your core beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI can even, sort of, understand that you might lash out violently in a moment of outrage and anger, but that's not the case here. From the article:
"The man claimed he wanted to check on the condition of his daughter ... then he shot her in the head,"
This was premeditated murder. The guy knew what had happened and he had had the time to cool off and think it over. Instead, he got a gun, went to the hospital, hustled his way in and killed her.
All for some antiquated notions of sin and family honor.
And if that isn't horrible enough, how about this: Who's going to take custody of the twins?
This was a horrific event. The scariest part is the fact that this is probably nowhere near the last we will hear of these atrocities.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should pass laws in the US that make honor killings and religious murders carry as great a weight as hate crimes already do.
@jtcowles: The fastest way you can get a parent to murder their child is to convince them that god wants it to happen. Muslims, Christians and more have done this, and they will continue to do this so long as they delude themselves into believing that their god can ask anything of them, no matter how much they may know it is wrong.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJTcowles: Did that Muslim father have an objective standard for morals?
ReplyDeleteUnrelated, but could you please change either the black box with the labels/amount of comments on it - or the color of the text? The combination makes it very difficult to read, at least for me.
ReplyDelete@Mark B
ReplyDeleteOf course not. He's a muslim. Only christians have objective morality.
Lukas,
ReplyDeleteI wanted to hear his excuse, but you're right.
Christian "Objective" Morality (is an absolute joke):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.atheist-community.org/atheisteve/?id=69
@jtcowles: Regardless of whether atheists have an objective standard or not, theists certainly don't.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe that a god provides you with the standard for morality, then by definition, it is subjective. If it were objective, it would have to exist independently of a god.
JTcowles: Until you are actually permitted an opinion on morality, why should anyone even listen to you? Your entire position is "what god says is right". When god deems it important enough to speak for himself, I'll listen. Otherwise, if you don't even value your own input on these matters, Why should anyone else?
ReplyDeleteMurder is punishable by death in Jordan but in so-called "honour killings" courts can commute or reduce sentences, particularly if the victim's family asks for leniency.
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one who thinks he had other reasons and is hiding behind the honor thing?
Although even if that's the case, this kind of religiously-based law allows for getting away with lighter punishment.
"JTcowles: Until you are actually permitted an opinion on morality, why should anyone even listen to you? Your entire position is "what god says is right". When god deems it important enough to speak for himself, I'll listen. Otherwise, if you don't even value your own input on these matters, Why should anyone else?"
ReplyDelete@rrpostal
You are confusing Moral Ontology with Moral Epistemology and obviously do not understand the Divine Command Theory.
Then, by all means, clarify.
ReplyDeleteAfter a brief look at wikipedia, I come away with the impression that "Divine Command Theory" is just a fancy way of saying that morality = whatever god says, which is exactly what we were discussing. If you want to contribute to the discussion, please state your actual position.
DCT does not appear to me to get around the basic Euthyphro problem of morality being either subjective or entirely independent of god.
I don't see why this is controversial. Killing your daughter for the heinous crime of getting pregnant out of wedlock seems completely fluent with the Old Testament. After all, God commanded that rape victims have to marry their rapist.
ReplyDeleteAtheism and values is an oxymoron
ReplyDeleteValues don't come from valueless matter....
Atheists just make up "meaning" and lie to themselves pretending there is "meaning" to their lives.
Clearly "meaning" is linked to "purpose" so I don't intend it to mean "meaning" as in "cognitively meaningful". That was your misunderstanding. If I had intended that then I could not have suggested that these atheists were communicating anything meaningful [and clearly I did]. So I think that's an obvious and desperate misrepresentation of what was intended. I also linked "meaning" to purpose and morals as there is overlap in the issues
Frankly I do not care one iota if an atheist wishes to say that they must rebal against nihilism with personal "rebellion" or "will" or "act" or "subjective meaning".
They still live in a meaningless universe ultimately, as they themselves admit, and THIS is what they cannot live with. Atheists cannot live with JUST a completely subjective account of meaning, purpose and morals since their lives contradict what their lying lips tell us.
All and all you atheists are just fooling yourselves, you have no objective purpose, meaning or value. The Universe doesn't care if you live or die.
@Wired for sound
ReplyDeleteYou said "After all, God commanded that rape victims have to marry their rapist."
So you believe that the Bible is inerrant?
What makes rape wrong under atheism? It happens all the time in the animal kingdom. (Sharks)
@L2Philosophy: Mentioning the ontology vs epistemology thing says to me you are either an extreme pedant or a WL Craig fan. But I don't see where it's entirely appropriate. I don't really care about what you say is moral because of how you claim to know it. I'm not mixing the two up. One follows from the other.
ReplyDeleteSaying "you don't understand" is not response, it's avoiding a response. I could say you don't understand why DCT is a pretty silly way to derive morals just as easily.
L2Philosophy: Firstly, nothing is moral "under atheism". I think you're making a mistake of confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. What you want to ask is "if god doesn't tell you what is right, how would I know?".
ReplyDeleteMorality is a way for human beings to get along with each other and maximize group and individual well being. It's not too hard to see that someone's well being is being damaged by being raped. I would not want to be raped. Even if the rapist could argue his well being was advanced (arguable), if we allow people to rape one another willy nilly, I or he could be raped at any time. I would not like this for myself, or anyone I care about trivially, thus I am strongly anti-rape.
It's pretty silly you even need to ask this. You are so concerned with divine authority that you are losing some of your humanity. It confirms why I say that your opinion does not matter. You actually need to ask why rape would be bad without god.
"@L2Philosophy: Mentioning the ontology vs epistemology thing says to me you are either an extreme pedant or a WL Craig fan. But I don't see where it's entirely appropriate. I don't really care about what you say is moral because of how you claim to know it. I'm not mixing the two up. One follows from the other.
ReplyDeleteSaying "you don't understand" is not response, it's avoiding a response. I could say you don't understand why DCT is a pretty silly way to derive morals just as easily."
Hello Fundie:
Because, obviously you don't. Belief in God is irrelevant to the DCT, it is his existence that is relevant. So like I said "You don't understand".
Putting your own spin on arguments doesn't mean you are correct.
WLC is correct when he points this out to the atheists who commit to "pop philosophy". How we come to know morals is trivial to the DCT. No one is claiming voluntarism.
Do you follow?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Morality is a way for human beings to get along with each other and maximize group and individual well being."
ReplyDeleteThis has many, many flaws
WHY work on a presumption of the survival of the human species as being something important?
is there some magical gene that came from this purposeless universe that whispers in our ears "You must survive"?
You cannot say it's a "good" thing because then you are ascribing objective value to their collective existence. So your hands are tied here. Why does the ongoing existence of human beings have to be the rationale?
Surely it should be "life" more generally if we're being very pragmatic and other species stand a MUCH better chance of survival if humans obliterate each other.
@Lukas
ReplyDelete"DCT does not appear to me to get around the basic Euthyphro problem of morality being either subjective or entirely independent of god."
The Euthyphro?
Are you serious? This isn't hard to answer, it seems you having been keeping up with moral philosophy, or you just chose to ignore how this has been answered.
God doesn’t really have moral duties to fulfill, since He doesn’t issue commands to Himself.
So we don’t praise Him for doing His duty. Rather He is to be adored for His moral character because He is essentially loving, just, kind, etc.
It is because God is that way that these qualities count as virtues in the first place. So if we think of God’s goodness in terms of His possessing certain virtues rather than fulfilling certain duties.
If it be asked why God is the paradigm and standard of moral goodness, then I think this gives a good answer:
God is the greatest conceivable being, and it is greater to be the paradigm of goodness than to conform to it.
One can then add: This entails His being metaphysically necessary and morally perfect. which is why God can serve as the foundation of necessary moral truths, i.e., moral truths which hold in every possible world.
Then one can say moral values (or at least many of them) are not contingent, but hold in every possible world. Then God will ground these values in every possible world. That seems to me to settle the issue.
God’s moral character is essential to Him; that’s why we say it was part of His nature. To say that some property is essential to God is to say that there is no possible world in which God could have existed and lacked that property. God didn’t just happen by accident to be loving, kind, just, and so forth. He is that way essentially.
@rrpostal
ReplyDelete(edit to condense)
"You actually need to ask why rape would be bad without god."
This is so simple to answer if you look at the response to the Euthyphro dilemma:
God wills something because it is good....
Our concern is with moral ontology, that is to say, the foundation in reality of moral values.
"L2Philosophy: Firstly, nothing is moral "under atheism". I think you're making a mistake of confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. What you want to ask is "if god doesn't tell you what is right, how would I know?".
Morality is a way for human beings to get along with each other and maximize group and individual well being. It's not too hard to see that someone's well being is being damaged by being raped. I would not want to be raped. Even if the rapist could argue his well being was advanced (arguable), if we allow people to rape one another willy nilly, I or he could be raped at any time. I would not like this for myself, or anyone I care about trivially, thus I am strongly anti-rape.
It's pretty silly you even need to ask this. You are so concerned with divine authority that you are losing some of your humanity. It confirms why I say that your opinion does not matter. You actually need to ask why rape would be bad without god."
This is where you are digging yourself a hole and proving my point without even realizing it.
Atheists have no real moral standard – just subjective opinions. So by their own standard, it’s impossible for them to claim that he is a moral coward. Everything is just molecules clashing together, with no ultimate purpose or goal. Where do moral “oughts” come from?
Why should I listen to them? In order for you to claim someone is a moral _______, you first need a moral standard to make that judgement from.
Nobody questions whether the atheist can be moral, but the question is can you give him a “good reason” to be moral. Without an objective standard, you have no ENDZONE or a measuring stick to judge morals.
Right now your whole moral system are nothing but opinions, you create morals in your mind so you can live a happy life and ignore the truth of the matter.
Under atheism Morality is just an illusion.
Our concern is not with moral semantics, that is to say, the meaning of moral terms. The theist is quite ready to say that we have a clear understanding of moral vocabulary like “good,” “evil,” right,” and so on, without reference to God.
Thus, it is informative to learn that “God is essentially good.”
Basically, without theism we have no moral code. That is a false statement. End of line.
ReplyDeleteWith theism you have no morality. Which is clear just from the pages of human history.
"God is essentially good" Does god define good or does good define god?
If god is defined by good, he's just the middle-man and we don't need him.
If god is the author of good, good is just whatever god wants.
And if this god is described in the pages of the bible or quran, he definitely has nothing to do with good.
@L2Philosophy:
ReplyDelete"Right now your whole moral system are nothing but opinions, you create morals in your mind so you can live a happy life and ignore the truth of the matter."
And the notion that a god exists is somehow not "nothing but an opinion?"
We're both laying down axioms, the only difference is that one has evidence and the other doesn't.
@farmboy
ReplyDelete"Basically, without theism we have no moral code. That is a false statement. End of line."
WOW, so basically you are arguing that your opinion is true, because you said so?
I don't find emotional arguments to be convincing.
Now in regards to a measuring stick of your morals.
I want to know how morals without the existence of are Measurable ? whos measuring stick are we using ? yours ? who cares ,your measuing stick is just one among billions of others when your standard gets in the way of another atheist why OUGHT he care at all about your opinions and personal standards ? what happens when he wants your rewards ? and is smart enough to avoid any consequences in getting them ? your moral code evaporates into an arbitrary behavior code. You live in a universe of make believe values , illusory good and evil
In a meaningless atheistic world you are not here for any reason and are not here to secure any goals but you can invent a bed time story, pretend you have a reason or goal for your accidental existence, pretend your every choice is not equally arbitrary, valueless and are not an accidental conglomerations of pointless matter in a random world.
All atheist values and choices wind up being arbitrary (=contigent solely on ones discrection ).
So, given our accidental and arbitrary existence, to continue in purposeful resolve, as if there was actually some rationale for preferring one course of action to another, is to take another atheistic leap of faith.
"And if this god is described in the pages of the bible or quran, he definitely has nothing to do with good."
Again, another person who mixes up Moral Ontology with Moral epistemology. No one is claiming voluntarism here.
The problem is you assume that reductions have to be definitional so that if you identified obligatioriness or goodness with a natural property it followed the meaning of the word "goodness" was synomous with the meaning of the word for the natural property. This is simply false, take the phrase "is water H20?" this is an open question subject to empirical investigation, that does not entail water is not H20.
@Andrew says
ReplyDelete"And the notion that a god exists is somehow not "nothing but an opinion?"
We're both laying down axioms, the only difference is that one has evidence and the other doesn't."
What evidence have you provided me with? Subjective opinions? The Moral argument is Heavily in favor of the existence of a God (Moral Lawgiver) just by this simple concept.
How do "rights" or "values" emerge from valueless matter? Matter has properties (Shape, mass, color, texture, and so on), but moral value isn't one of them.
If God doesn't exist, human dignity, worth, and moral duty must have emerged from valueless processes. In fact, and in contrast, from valuelessness, valuelessness comes.
A Solely materialistic universe might produce in us feelings and beliefs of obligation - like the protection of our children or the survival of our species - but that's a different matter from actually having such obligations we OUGHT to carry out.
Goodness is bound up with personhood, and without the existence of a personal God (who created all other persons), no moral values would exist, period. Without this personal God, the source of all personhood, why think that moral values should appear on the scene? Moral values and personhood are intertwined.
God's existence offers a ready explanation for the existence of value in the world. If goodness somehow existed as part of the furniture of the universe (Reflecting Plato's theory of forms), then it would be an astonishing cosmic coincidence that creatures would evolve over billions of years and somehow be duty-bound to moral values just waiting "out there"...as though these values were somehow anticipating the emergence of humans!
God's existence connects preexisting goodness ( in God's character) with these valuable creatures (in God's image).
Atheism provides no foundations, only feet planted firmly in mid-air.
Lastly:
Let me put it this way, if you're a naturalist you have a good reason for doubting your cognitive faculties - your perception, memory, rational intuition. The probability that these things are reliable is low BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT HOW THEY CAME TO BE. The naturalist sees out evolution as a journey about conducivity to survival. It is an impersonal journey not concerned with meaning, purpose and truth [all deeply personal things].
All you are is a being that evolved from a lesser being, therefore your BRAIN is adapted to SURVIVAL and not TRUTH. *Aka* Darwins Doubt
NATURALISTIC Evolution does not filter for truth or morality it simply physically falls into surivival niches. When did naturalistic reason become reasonable ? when did Evolutionary morality become Moral ?
The answer is NEVER , it has no moral destination it was never aiming for one, all it can aim at is more matter , and there is no good or evil matter , tsunamis are not evil they are just water, Tornados are not evil they are just wind, evolution also had no truth destination , Evolution is directionless like the atheist universe and all the contradictory atheist brains that contradict other atheists moralities and truths assuming atheist brains even have any truths, physical atheist minds have lucky guesses at best not knowledge.
All and all you atheists are just fooling yourselves, you have no objective purpose, meaning or value. The Universe doesn't care if you live or die
ReplyDeleteWell, duh! Did you really think we weren't aware of that?
He is to be adored for His moral character because He is essentially loving, just, kind, etc.
But if loving, just, kind, etc simply means "whatever god is", then what you're saying is that god should be adored because he's god.
The statement "God is to be adored for His moral character because He is essentially X", would be equally valid for any X. Do you agree?
It is because God is that way that these qualities count as virtues in the first place.
You haven't solved the Euthyphro dilemma, you've simply chosen to impale yourself on one of the horns; whatever god does is good. Ergo, you have no objective moral standard.
If you can't demonstrate the existence of a god, then any argument that rests on the existence of a god is a non-starter. Humans arose, humans want to thrive and not be harmed, so humans created values and morality. Does this matter to the cosmos at large? No, but that's not relevant in the context of human existence.
ReplyDeleteAll talk of deeper meaning and purpose is just that: talk.
A-theism. Without theism. That is all.
ReplyDeleteSo to say atheists don't have morality is to say people can't be good without god, without theism. Which is a false statement, clearly.
This isn't about where atheists think morality comes from: this is about where theists think morality comes from. You claim it HAS to come from theism/god. That is not true. The very news article at the top of this page is evident of this.
And now you insist atheist lives are meaningless? Are you actually saying that without god, without theism, there would be no point to anything, you wouldn't care for your loved ones, you wouldn't go to your job, you wouldn't enjoy food or movies or helping others for the sake of helping them, instead of for some divine reward in heaven?
You imply atheism is nihilistic, when it is clear that we're leading great fulfilling lives without some alien space daddy telling us what we should do and what we shouldn't do. You are the one who is nihilistic, claiming that without a god EVERYTHING ELSE doesn't matter.
If you would discover there is no god tomorrow would you drop a baby down a well? If you answer yes you are a psychopath.
Good men don't need rules. Good men do good without obligation.
What is good, you may ask? One thing is sure, it's not the Judeo-Christian god. He is not good just because you say he is, or because some ancient book says so -right alongside the passages where he slaughters cities, kills babies, murders and torments innocent men and drowns planets- Divine command isn't morality. Morality requires thinking. There's no thinking when it comes to god.
Just because something is random or accidental doesn't mean it's pointless. Any given hand in a game of poker could have you win the game. It is people who give meaning to the cards, invent the rules to random pictures and numbers (invented by man to describe things).
ReplyDeleteThe odds of me winning the game (without bluffing) with any given hand is fantastical, yet it can happen, has happened, and yet you still insist the game MUST be rigged because of the small odds involved, because you don't want to believe it happened by accident, because that somehow cheapens the game?
You look at a sculpture by Michelangelo (for example) and say 'but it's just marble and atoms and stuff' yes we know, somehow that cheapens the beauty of it? No. Mountains are just dirt and trees. Lightning is electricity. We know how it works. It strikes randomly, unpredictably. It has no meaning or purpose. It is a product of the weather's conditions.
But here's you claiming you don't like that it's random, therefore you're going to believe it was controlled by an almighty invisible space daddy. Because otherwise the lightning is just meaningless! My response to you...So. What?
Life. Is. Life. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." (with or without a god and yet you claim it needs a god for it to smell sweet. It's simply stupid.)
It is my opinion that if there is a god it does cheapen everything in existence, because it isn't unique (god could change everything with a handwavium of his magic pinky), all the world's a stage and we're just playing our parts in this insane sado-masochistic entertainment for this god, everything is planned, created with a purpose...and that purpose is to worship and obey. What a waste of such a beautiful world for such a petty meaning of life.
ReplyDeleteThe world is much more beautiful without a god. Without magic and superstition.
Not to mention the fact that there is eternal afterlife waiting for us...this is just a test...a stepping stone toward our 'real' life in heaven...100 years is just a blink of an eye in the vastness of eternity...and it's supposed to be more beautiful, more happy, more bliss, better than this life in every single way.
ReplyDeleteIt's no wonder that the christians are so eager for it all to end, pointing to every earthquake as a sign of the 'last days' (which have been prophesized for thousands and thousands of years, even way before the christians and jews) because all this is just meaningless without god, right? You can't wait to join him in heaven and leave this miserable hell hole.
Christians are the nihilists. They are the pessimists. In their apocalyptic blood cult. Leave your families and possessions and friends (hate them even) and disown all blood ties and only call god father and follow me, jesus said in the bible, this generation shall not pass before this has all come to pass...the end of the world...
He was no different from any cult leader by the looks of it. And you're calling him and the tribe war god he's supposed to be the avatar of the source of objective morality? Why, because a book says so? Ridiculous.
@L2Philosophy
ReplyDelete"Atheism provides no foundations, only feet planted firmly in mid-air."
This here is the problem with your argument. It's an obvious statement. No one derives morals from atheism... just like no one derives money from "not working". Atheism is never a guideline for morals, it is merely a lack of belief in a god. And let's be fair here, even you don't get your morals from god himself. You get your morals from a book you are pretty sure was written by god.
As for where atheists get their morals, it depends on the atheist. I got the majority of my morals from the way I was raised by my parents, and living as a member of society. Much of my morals come from school, where they never even mentioned god to begin with. My parents and teachers probably got their morals from their parents and teachers, and so on and so forth all the way back to the first mammal ancestors of ours that figured out working together makes life less shitty.
Furthermore, morality has improved over time. My grandfather was a racist sumbitch, but his kids weren't. They didn't learn NOT to be racist from him, they learned it themselves. My dad is uncomfortable around Muslims (along with a few other groups), and I tend to be more tolerant around them without him telling me to do so. Innovation exists everywhere, including morality. Remember, someone at some point had to innovate for us to all figure out that slavery is probably wrong (because your ancestors certainly didn't believe that to be the case).
That said, you've still avoided the problems with your statements. Why do you think that rape is wrong when your god says that rape is so damn great? Why do you think that slavery is wrong if your god says slavery is fine and good? Or am I wrong about you disliking them, because your god says they are fine?
"He is to be adored for His moral character because He is essentially loving, just, kind, etc."
ReplyDeleteYou have no way to determine that he is is loving and kind. No way at all. What standard would you use? You've already told us that you can't determine these things without a god. You've painted yourself into a god corner. You must use your god to determine that your god is good. Even you should see this is circular.
Does this person even read anything we write?
ReplyDeleteI take the time to explain, in a basic but honest words, how morals are derived in my view. In the direct response, it says, "This is where you are digging yourself a hole and proving my point without even realizing it. Atheists have no real moral standard."
Should I just copy and paste the exact same answer again?
@Lukas - I agree he did not in any way refute the Euthyphro Dilemma, but I'm not even sure from the response if he bothered to understand it.
Also- I can not understand why the lack of a cosmic significance makes life meaningless, so I don't even know how to even start with that. But I enjoy reading what others have to say on this odd thought.
Basically, god determines what is good, and by this standard he will judge god good....
ReplyDeleteSo god is good because god says he is. Wow.
@farmboy
ReplyDeleteIt's probably sadder than that. The story of Abraham is pretty much a clear indicator that anyone who feels that the bible is inerrant should believe that anything god says is good... after all, God demands that Abraham murder his son for no reason, then praises him for almost doing it (he stops him, but that still doesn't make it right).
If people really think like this, then it has horrific implications. It means that Christians really don't have a sense of good or evil; they simply have a sense of "god says to/god says not to". That's pretty sad. These people would murder, rape, and torture babies if the sky daddy told them to. That's pure brainwashing, no matter how you look at it.
John K says "I also wanted to add that there is no absolute morality anymore than there is an absolute language. Morality requires a population under consideration to be coherent. With no population, there is no morality, and thus morality cannot be absolute."
ReplyDeleteOk population to be coherent, so a society then.
Here are reasons why this view is an invalid:
First - it is difficult to define what a society is or to specify in a given case what the relevant society is. Consider societies A and B. If a man from A has extramarital sex with a woman from B in a hotel in a third society C, which holds a different view from either A or B, which is the relevant society for deterimining the act was right or wrong?
Second - a related objection is the fact that we are often simultaneously a member of several different societies that may hold different moral values: our nuclear family; our extended family; our neighborhood, school, church, or social clubs; our place of employment; our town, state, country, and the international community. Which society is the relevant one? What if I am simultaneously a member of two societies and one allows but the other forbids a certain moral action? What do I do in the case?
Third - moral relativism suffers from a problem known as the reformer's dilemma. If normative relativism is true, then it is logically impossible for a society to have a virtuous, moral reformer like Jesus Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, because moral members of a society who stand outside that society's code and pronounce a need for reform and change in that code. However, if an act is right if and only if it is in keeping with a given society's code, then the moral reformer himself is by definition an immoral person, for his views are at odds with those of his society. Moral reformers must always be wrong because they go against the code of their society. But any view that implies that moral reformers are impossible is defective because we all know that moral reformers have actually existed!
Now some acts are wrong regardless of social conventions, I'm pretty sure people know that some things are wrong, such as torturing babies, without first needing criteria for knowing how it is that they do, in fact, know such things. Thus, and act such as torturing babies can be wrong and known to be wrong even if the soceity says it is right. In fact, an act can be right or wrong even if society says nothing whatever about the act.
If moral relativism is true, it is difficult to see how one society could be justified in morally blaming another society in certain cases. According to moral relativism, I should act in keeping with my society's code and others should act in keeping with their societies' codes. If Joe does an act that is right in his code but wrong in mine, how can I criticize his act as wrong?
If you really do believe that a child rapist isn't truly wrong, then you cannot prosecute the rapist for doing the rape. If you do, then it is a raw excercise of power that has nothing to do with Justice, because justice is a function of objective morality. In the relativistic world there is no objective morality and therefore there is no justice. So then you can't punish that person, but if you can't punish a rapist you can't punish anyone.
You have to freely acknowledge that power is the only legitmate ajudicator of behaviors.
Ok, this was getting to be too big a reply, so I'm cutting straight to some problems I see.
ReplyDelete#1
Morality requires a population, not because it's impossible for us to consider moral questions for ourselves, but because morality deal with the issue of how two or more people behave towards each other. It 's about rules for social interaction. If you were the only person on the planet, worrying about morality would be idiotic. It would make no sense.
and act such as torturing babies can be wrong and known to be wrong even if the soceity says it is right
Sure, because all that's required is that one , single person says that it's wrong. Once that happens, we have a new moral standard, wherein baby torture is wrong.
#2
Throughout your post, you remain stuck in a moral absolutist point of view. As a result, many of your comments and questions are meaningless. E.g.
which is the relevant society for deterimining the act was right or wrong?
What if I am simultaneously a member of two societies and one allows but the other forbids a certain moral action? What do I do in the case?
If you really do believe that a child rapist isn't truly wrong [my emphasis]
You still want there to be one right answer. There isn't. Deal with it.
Since morality is relative, it's entirely possible for a person (or an act or whatever) to be simultaneously moral and immoral, as judged by different standards.
The fact that there are different standards does not mean that I can't reasonably judge according to my standard. I can too judge the child rapist and I don't need to claim my moral code as transcendentally true in order to do so.
Maybe a down to earth example will help:
If we've decided to play chess, then the fact that there are other games out there doesn't mean that the rules of chess become invalid.
Further, if I claim victory by throwing down a full house of queens and tens, it may in fact be totally valid according to the rules of poker. However, that does not mean that you can't tell me to stick to the game we agreed upon and refuse to acknowledge my win.
#3
A minor point:
I'm pretty sure people know that some things are wrong, such as torturing babies, without first needing criteria for knowing how it is that they do, in fact, know such things
It's called instincts. Most animals have such built-in aversions to harming their own young. Those that don't are no longer around. In humans, we even care about babies that are not related to us, likely because of our tribal social structure. So what?
Now, if you could show a moral rule that was:
1) acknowledged by all societies everywhere and at all times
2) which also had no utility whatsoever
3) which had no evolutionary corollary in other animals
Then you might have something.
Ok...now that I'm able to post again let's see if I will be silenced quickly by those who don't like to hear opinions that conflict with their own, because of fear of disagreement.
ReplyDeleteHere is a message to all of you. I have a right to voice my opinion, and just because I don't agree with your opinions which lack philosophical coherence, it doesn't mean I have to get temporarily banned.
I take that temporary ban as an act of fear. I know you don't like the idea being wrong, but sooner or later your are going to have be honest with yourselves and weigh in all options.
It seems as though a lot of people in here like to put their own twist on theistic arguments, unfortunately though there is a reason why putting your own spin on arguments doesn't magically change into a coherent statement just because you want it to.
So Deciever asked me if objected to God raping whomever in the OT. Well first off I take it this atheist finds the OT to be inerrant, or at least in this argument, so it helps his case. Further down the road I'm sure he will state that the bible has errors and that we aren't sure what scripture to believe. So let's pretend he is truly believes the writings in the OT are inerrant.
Well honestly my opinion doesn't matter, it's just as subjective as yours. I'm not sure if you want me to pick a fight with God over a disagreement, but the point is my opinion on what's God should or shouldn't do is irrelevant.
Secondly, I don't what euthyphro dilemma you've been studying, but I am speaking of the one that was stated by Plato on his works about Socrates. I will ignore the laymen Euthyphro that you are using, and use the one that Philosophers agree on.
Here are the 2 horns, followed by the solution.
1. Is something good because God wills it? (I didn't pick that, so I wasn't impaled)
2. Does God will something because it is good? (I didn't pick that, so I wasn't impaled)
S. God wills something because HE is Good. (this is what I picked, and meant to pick)
This is the Euthyphro Dilemma, with the solution. Any questions?
If God commands rape on the Evil enemies of the OT, does my opinion matter on whether or not God was right in doing so? No
Will it change anything? No
If I disagree with God is picking a fight with him going to do anything? No
Therefore my argument still stands, and I haven't seen anything that even shows a flaw.
I can't help the fact that people don't take the time to understand the argument, but instead butcher the argument to their favor. It is what it is
@Lukas you are mixing utilitarianism with Moral relativism, with Consequentialism a little Deontology.
ReplyDeleteSo let's pick on Utilitarianism:
If an action/rule is not inherently good (or bad), how would one know whether the end/goal is good?
How can we measure societal well-being without considering individual well-being?
Utilitarianism assumes individual persons don't have value - what matters is what they contribute to overall well-being. HUmans are a means to certain societal ends.
Secular utilitarians skip key metaphysical questions ("Do humans have rights and inherent value? Does God exist? Where did the universe come from?") ; they often presume a naturalistic worldview without argument.
While we should consider consequences, we can't judge an action/rule on the basis of consequences alongl our fundamental intuitions about human value should be taken seriously.
What if several people need organ transplants in order to survive (e.g, one needs a heart, another a kidney, another a set of lungs), and what if there's a transient whoes organs could help them? What would be wrong with bringing benefit and happiness to a number of lives by sacrificing one (potentially wasted) life? No-we should dispense with utilitarianism, not with our basic intuitions.
Given utilitarianism, acts of supereogation (morally herioc acts) become duties: If a dying man needs a kidney replacement, and I'm able to help him by donating one of my kidneys (thus bringing a benefit to another human being), I MUST DO SO. But while such a heroic act is good and may bring broader benefit to others (increased utility), it isn't a duty. No one should demand that I sacrifice a kidney.
What if adopting a non-utilitarian ethic (e.g., certain acts are right in themselves; humans have intrinsic value) brings greater benefit to a society? If so, it would be wrong to teach utilitarianism in society. But that's odd - to hold to a moral theory that should NOT be taught.
We still have the problem of moving from "is" to "ought". Why think that value should emerge at all if we are the products of valueless material processes?
What happens if child molestation actually increases the pleasure of adults? What if their pleasure somehow could be said to outweigh any harm that may come to a child? What if child molestation becomes a goal of adults in society (like for NAMBLA, The North American Man / Boy Love Association)?
What if a scapegoat could be found to rally a society's economic recovery (e.g., "The Jews are responsible for Germany's economic decline") Would this then be wrong?
Utilitarianism is counterintuitive in that it does not take motives into account - only the consequences of an action or rule. This clearly is wrong. No matter how good the consequences, an act done with wrong motives is morally inferior to one done with right motives. Visiting or taking care of Grandma in order to have my name in her will is morally different from carrying out the identical act with selfless morives- even if both acts have the same result.
Utilitarianism tends to eliminate the natural importance of family loyalties and deep friendships. William Godwin (1756-1836) wrote that if he had to choose between saving a maid and the Archbishop of Cambrai, he would save the archbishop (because of his value to society). When asked if the maid were his grandmother, he said he would still save the archbishop.
(Gordon Graham, Eight theories of Ethics [London: Routledge, 2004] pg 160.
But treating our friends abd relatives as being on par with everyone else is utterly counterintuitive. Gordon Graham asks: "Why should we do the morally right thing if doing so requires us to treat those who are special to us as though they were not?" Utilitarianism violates our deepest sense of loyalty and commitment. Are we obligated to care for other children more than our own if they have a greater need than our own children?
Let's cut through the crap (and MAN, is there a lot of crap) and go straight to the good stuff, shall we:
ReplyDelete1. Is something good because God wills it? (I didn't pick that, so I wasn't impaled)
2. Does God will something because it is good? (I didn't pick that, so I wasn't impaled)
S. God wills something because HE is Good. (this is what I picked, and meant to pick).
This is the Euthyphro Dilemma, with the solution. Any questions?
Just one: How do you define "good"?
This isn't a solution, it's an evasion. Your "solution" is not an answer, it's a restatement of the problem.
You can either define good as a function of god (the first horn) or you can define it independently of god (the second horn). Make up your mind and stop dodging the question.
I can't help the fact that people don't take the time to understand the argument, but instead butcher the argument to their favor
I'm just going to let that stand.
If an action/rule is not inherently good (or bad), how would one know whether the end/goal is good?
ReplyDeleteYou wouldn't. You subjectively and arbitrarily decide upon a goal. Once you've done so, the rules that best lead to that goal can be objectively determined, but the goal itself can't be.
How can we measure societal well-being without considering individual well-being?
As far as I can see, we can't. A society is directly related to the individuals that create it,.
Utilitarianism assumes individual persons don't have value
WOW! Hold on there, bro! Where on earth did you get that definition?
As a direct cause of the previous point, you can't separate societal health and individual health. They're inextricably connected.
they often presume a naturalistic worldview without argument.
No, we don't, dipshit. We just think that that argument ought to be had separate from ethics, not in the middle of an ethical argument. Just like I think you should first make the steak and then the chocolate pudding, not both in the same bowl at the same time.
You really do have an exaggerated view of your own intelligence and erudition, don't you (watch him accuse me of an ad hominem now).
What if several people need organ transplants in order to survive...
Are you really under the impression that no moral philosophers have ever addressed that question? I dealt with that in an introductory class on ethics almost ten years ago. You are arguing against a version of strict utilitarianism that no person in the world actually adheres to. As such, it's a straw man.
We still have the problem of moving from "is" to "ought". Why think that value should emerge at all if we are the products of valueless material processes?
Because I like being alive. You like being alive. Therefore, it makes sense for us to agree not to kill each other.
Yes, it really is THAT FUCKING SIMPLE!
treating our friends abd relatives as being on par with everyone else is utterly counterintuitive
No. Counter-instinctual. Oddly enough, here you're elevating basic animal drives to the level of moral imperatives.
Well, L2Philosophy has basically elucidated the moral vacuum at Christianity's core, by stating quite clearly that he simply considers "God" synonymous with "good" and couldn't care less about passing judgment on any of the clearly evil acts perpetrated by this being on the grounds that his opinion doesn't mater anyway. Thus L2Philosophy has, by his own admission, replaced any notion of right and wrong with uncritical obedience to authority. Sure, I suppose I could ask him on what basis he equates "God" with "good," but as it's apparent he has no such basis and doesn't really care anyway, I see nothing to be gained.
ReplyDeleteTry to kill your only child will result in everyone getting a holiday called Id Adha. That's what Abraham did.
ReplyDeleteKill non-Jews for holy means even though you are gay and you will be remembered. That's Gay David. Today if you did the same thing you will be called a HomoHitler.
Have sex with your maid because your OLD wife suggested it. That's Abraham, Sarah and Hagar. You will be rewarded with the nation of Israel and perhaps non-nation Palestine. If you did this today you will be Dominique Strauss-Khan.
You could leave your wife and newborn just because you discovered sufferring. That OK for Buddha. Today you will be a sleazebag and your kid will be as messed up like Pink.
Betray your princess foster mum and part the Red Sea. But your devotees will object that you are made into a cartoon. Oh Moses!