Covenant morality for humanity- the humanist approach

skeptic griggsy

:cool:Theists live off our humanist covenant for morality when they discern the consequences of actions on humans, other animals and the enviornment in doing morality rather than we humanists live off theirs as they arrogantly maintain. We use reason to do so rather than the whims and tastes enshrined in holy books as ethics.
We humans have an evolved moral sense that we have to refine. We experience empathy for others; we learn to extend that beyond our families to the whole planet as Paul Kutz so admonishes us. As he notes in ' Forbidden Fruits," people are outraged at immoral actions, putting God as the source of morality; however they have it backwards: morals come first that then people do put as that source, but it takes morality to affirm God. The Euthyphro portrays morality as independent of the gods.
Ours is contextual, requring us to think in applying our rules to actions. It is, like science, provisional and debatablle. So it is not absolute. It is for us rather than we for it!
Our standard is discerning those consequences [ consequential morality] in forming our rules [ deontological morality]-rule utililitarianism [ Kant- Bentham] . From Kant we learn to make rules universal; from Bentham, we learn to take into account pain and pleasure in our discernin those consequences. The rules outline our virtues. So ours is teleological, deontological and a virtuous ethic.
Ponder Michael Shermer's " The Theory of Good and Evil " and Michael Martin's " Atheism, Morality and Meaning" as well as Kurtz's to see that we atheists do indeed have a standard to go by.
Ours is a more moral age than ever than in the Ages of Faith, :P even more than a hundred years ago!
Anon feelings do count!

skeptic griggsy

Those feelings- moral sentiments, like empathy,- the wide- reflective subjectivism of Hobbes and Hume underpins objective morality. This as John Beversluis in " C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion observes: " [n] ot as Lewis would have us believe , int eh sense of what we personally like or dislike, but in the very different sense of our judgments of approval or disapproval-judgments that our often at odds with what we personally like or dislike and base on the insight that, as a rational being, I cannot ask people to teat me in certain ways unless I am willing to treat them in the same ways." Note it is that these judgments override our whims and tastes. So this is not that simple subjectivism of those misanthropic men of yore who wrote the Tanakh and the Testament. Lewis notwithstanding, one does not have to act as those writers urge but like Lord Russell who was quite moral when he was a simple subjectivist.
That very overriding underpins objective morallity. To continue with Beversluis : " Such judgments are subjective in that they originate in the feelings of the people making them. But they are also objective in two important ways: first, they are universal and apply to everyone; second, they are based on the principles of equity and equality of treatment. So from the fact that moral judgments are subjective, it follows neither that they vary from person to person nor that they are just " private ideas" in people's minds."
I find then the paradox that subjectivism can underpin objective morality.
God doth speak with a forked tongue! Lo, how different people interpret what those writers made up for Him! :eek::mad:
What say ye about the standard for morality? The consequences are mine. This is a form of rule utilitarianism. What would Kant affirm or Bentham? :cool:

Dades

Long time no see, griggsy!

skeptic griggsy

Those feelings- moral sentiments, like empathy,- the wide- reflective subjectivism of Hobbes and Hume underpins objective morality. This as John Beversluis in " C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion observes: " [n] ot as Lewis would have us believe , int eh sense of what we personally like or dislike, but in the very different sense of our judgments of approval or disapproval-judgments that our often at odds with what we personally like or dislike and base on the insight that, as a rational being, I cannot ask people to teat me in certain ways unless I am willing to treat them in the same ways." Note it is that these judgments override our whims and tastes. So this is not that simple subjectivism of those misanthropic men of yore who wrote the Tanakh and the Testament. Lewis notwithstanding, one does not have to act as those writers urge but like Lord Russell who was quite moral when he was a simple subjectivist.
That very overriding underpins objective morallity. To continue with Beversluis : " Such judgments are subjective in that they originate in the feelings of the people making them. But they are also objective in two important ways: first, they are universal and apply to everyone; second, they are based on the principles of equity and equality of treatment. So from the fact that moral judgments are subjective, it follows neither that they vary from person to person nor that they are just " private ideas" in people's minds."
I find then the paradox that subjectivism can underpin objective morality.
God doth speak with a forked tongue! Lo, how different people interpret what those writers made up for Him! :eek::mad:
What say ye about the standard for morality? The consequences are mine. This is a form of rule utilitarianism. What would Kant affirm or Bentham? :cool:
Yea, Dades, hello, what with virus infection of my Dell, Hughes.net getting hit by the weather,time @ other sites,particularly Amazon Religion Discussions and my dysthemia- low grade depression, I finally decide to return here and to some other sites,from which I haven't got new replies. Thanks.

skeptic griggsy

Pro=lifers see abortion as murder of the fetus whilst pro-choicers see it as the mother's necessity. Both see the same act but see different consequences. This seems to account for ethical relativism. Now, the former see the beginning of life for the fetus as the determinant matter whilst see the onset of personhood as that determinant, and they are right whilst the former are using an elentio elenchi- non-germane - to the issue as the American Supreme Courts sees the matter, gvining the states the power to put on restrictions in the last trimester in accordance with that personhood.
So, whilst all can conform to this standard of consequences, all can still disagree as one can in science.
Immanuel Kant with his universal standard argues that if some matter cannot be universalized, it must, perforce, be wrong to do. Lying , for instance, would be wrong as a society of liars would harm itself. He was a deontologist, one who goes by rules rather than by consequences.I , in noting that universal lying would harm a society, maintain that that doth imply that consequences to matter, and that is why I maintain that those consequences make for rules and virtues, so that deontology and teleology -consequences and virtues are intertwined rather than being separate and conflicting.:)
And, Ayn Rand notwithstanding, it is in our self-interests to practice altruism! We all gain with altruism. Altruism is only the practice of empathy, evolved moral sentiment, to others. It is not being a slave as Miss Rand would have said. It is applying the Golden or Silver or Platinum Rule: that we can expect others to treat us right as we treat them right.:cool:
Arthur Caplan, Paul Kurtz and Peter Singer treat morality rationally unlike that Yeshua!:P

skeptic griggsy

Yes, indeed there are sado-masochists who would gladly do unto other what they want others to do unto them.
They are rare. Yet Dr. John Hospers rightly notes such people as misusing the Golden [ or Silver] Rule, which I call the platinum rule to treat others nicely as Dr. Beversluis notes about rational people.
Hospers advocates ,like his one time friend Miss Rand, egoism- putting self first and foremost. Now don't confuse egoism with egotism- the trampling over of others. As noted above, I find this still wrong as other-regarding does not require one , perforce, to harm oneself as noted, unless to save others. Egoists reason that by being number 1 they actually help others. I prefer universalism -the ethic of self- and other-regarding.
Hosper's book 'Human Conduct" make morality and ethics come alive. At least, these two were atheists,albeit she an irrationalist as Dr . Shermer in "Why Do People Believe Weird Things" and Mr. David Walker reveal in "The Ayn Rand Cult.

Dave!

wat

Zombrex

This isn't a blog griggsy, it is a discussion forum.

Do you have anything you actually want to discuss?

Dades

He can't really discuss anything if nobody engages. Though it's tough to get to grips with, I know.

chozometroid

One thing is certain, Griggs cites a record number of authorities in almost every post.

skeptic griggsy

I find it silly that some focus on style or vocabulary or sources cited rather than content! However, I'm taking those points under advisement.
Of course, I cite those people as sources; I cannot take credit for everything , and thereby I'm encouraging others to inquire further as any scholar would.
I ground our humanist morality in consequences rather than in His will. Most theists, even if they grant that we can be moral, claim that we cannot ground our morality and that we live off theirs whilst the inverse is true if they use real facts and reason respecting those consequences.I also note that whether on just the wide reflective subjectivism or just an objective morality or just on my version of humanism, that paradox, that we can indeed justify our moral stances.
We transcend, therefore, Plato as we accept atheism rather than, like him, just the independence of morality from God.
What about the abortion question? Find another problem involving consequences. Would you prefer pure deontology rather than as I find rules based on consequences? Are you a nihilst?
What about those underpinnings that override our personal tastes and whims in wide -reflective subjectivism?
I cite just one person this time, eh?
Now be responsible to discuss how to ground better morality against theists' objections.
I'm for Epicureanism- responsible hedonism. Stoicism can be useful. What kind of morality do you advocate? Turn my statements into questions and affirm or rebut them.
I'm laying our what I find what other humanists claim, but it is defeasible - controverted.
Do you advocate egoism?
And please, just make points about morality rather than inane ones about me, so we can find out better how to advance our stance on morality, and find better ways to overcome theistic stances.:rolleyes:
So, how do we do that? After all, we don't want inane theistic laws made, like the insufferable anti-blasphemy laws! They blaspheme reason, morality and- humanity. They have insufferable consequences! :eek:
Thanks. ;